Outline - Youth Initiative High School NEW
SUCCESS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF
VISIONARY GRASSROOTS EDUCATION INITIATIVES
IN RURAL AREAS
A dissertation submitted
by
VICKY L. EIBEN
To
FIELDING GRADUATE UNIVERSITY
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
This dissertation has been accepted for
the faculty of Fielding Graduate University by
___________________________________
Sue Marquis Gordon, PhD
Committee Chair
Committee:
Jennifer L. Edwards, PhD, Research Faculty
Joyce Germaine-Watts, EdD, Faculty Reader
Brian Trautman, MA Ed, Student Reader
Madhu Suri Prakash, PhD, External Examiner
Success and Sustainability
of Visionary Grassroots Education Initiatives
in Rural Areas
by
Vicky L. Eiben
ABSTRACT
This study addressed the question: “What are the key elements in the success and sustainability of visionary grassroots education initiatives in rural areas?” Visionary grassroots education initiatives are community-based projects that address local learning and create new visions of what education is for and how it is done. These include initiatives such as folk schools, learning centers, learning cooperatives, and independent schools. They can supplement, enrich, or replace traditional school programs, and can encompass learning for all ages of students. Some educational advocates have identified these initiatives as a source of innovation and inspiration for educational futures. This dissertation research addressed three gaps in the literature: a) research on grassroots education initiatives is limited; b) research on qualitative aspects of success in alternative learning environments is minimal; c) rural issues and innovations are underrepresented in the national education dialogue and in research.
This research was an appreciative case study of three rural, grassroots education initiatives that included: Youth Initiative High School in Viroqua, Wisconsin; Cobscook Community Learning Center in Lubec, Maine; and Headwaters School in Red Star, Arkansas. These projects were initiated from within the community, located in rural areas, situated outside of the public school framework, striving to be accessible to all, at least 9 years old, and based on democratic processes. The data were gathered on-site and included 38 interviews, documentary artifacts, photographs, and field notes.
Three main themes spanned success and sustainability in these initiatives: a) they responded to broader cultural trends such as a desire for organizations created around values more representative of a broad range of human qualities; b) alignment with living systems qualities of: context, cooperation, creativity, cycles and patterns, dynamic balance and renewal, relationship, and wholeness created strengths that supported success and sustainability; c) they gave balanced attention to the areas of: Infrastructure; Identity; Spirit; and Earth, Community, and Global Connections. This research provides potential insights into success and sustainability of educational innovation in a variety of contexts.
Copyright by
VICKY LEE EIBEN
2008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have supported me in this doctoral journey the past 3 years. Each person helped to make possible my successful completion of this dissertation and degree.
I had a wonderful dissertation committee. First and foremost, Sue Gordon, my mentor throughout the program and my dissertation chair, has been a steady guide and support, offering encouragement when needed as well as critical feedback. She has been available whenever I have needed her. Her support and advocacy made possible a grant that funded my research. My research faculty, Jenny Edward’s, thorough and thoughtful editing has taught me much about the writing process and has held me to very high standards, which I have greatly appreciated. Joyce Germaine Watts, my faculty reader, was the committee member who pushed me to think carefully and deeply about a number of challenging issues and concepts. She has helped me to grow as a thoughtful scholar. My external reader, Madhu Suri Prakash, brought a broad understanding of grassroots initiatives that stretched my knowledge and my thinking. She has introduced me to a number of valuable resources and has been wonderfully supportive of my research path. This dissertation had two student readers. Dene Muller offered her thoughtful feedback on the first draft and has been a friend and support in the process. I was so thankful for Brian Trautman’s willingness to offer his insights for the second reading.
I was very thankful for the financial support of the Institute for Social Innovation, whose grant funded my research and made it possible for me to travel to Maine and Arkansas, as well as to buy necessary recording equipment.
I am deeply appreciative of the people at each of the case study sites who graciously gave of their time and energy to help me gain an in-depth understanding of their grassroots project. In particular, Alan Furth at CCLC, whose passion and vision for CCLC and similar projects has been an inspiration. From the first contact, Alan stressed the importance and value of such research. He made possible a rich week of visits with a diverse group of people. At Headwaters School, Kate and Howard Kuff opened their home to my son and me, complete strangers to them, for 3 days. They enthusiastically introduced us to rural Arkansas, helped to organize my schedule for the weekend, and passionately shared with me their decades of experience at the school. At Youth Initiative High School in my own community, I appreciated the opportunity to get to know acquaintances better and to gain a deeper understanding of a local school. It was an honor to meet all of the committed, compassionate, and visionary people at each of the three sites. I was deeply touched by their stories and their generosity.
I have been fortunate to be part of an amazing women’s group, nine women who gather for an evening every 2 weeks to share stories, joys, struggles, and questions. From my first musings about whether or not I should enter a doctoral program, they have been an unfailing source of support and encouragement. In the final stretch of the dissertation when it was clear that I needed some computer and word processing assistance, Katherine Koenig stepped forward, and in the midst of starting a new job herself, helped me to format all my tables and figures as well as clean up the word processing of the entire document. Katherine also guided me through the process of creating a power point for my Final Oral Review. During the last week of editing to get the document ready to send to the whole committee, these wonderful women brought meals and helped with childcare so that I could focus completely on finishing.
This whole journey has taught me a new level of trust in the serendipitous workings of the universe. As I was finishing the initial writing of the final chapters on a Friday afternoon, my computer crashed. My brother-in-law, Robert Hoversten, quickly came to the rescue, and was able to get into the hard drive and download everything onto a disc for me. A few weeks prior to this, a friend, Susan Boudreau, who was in the process of moving to the area, had asked to store her computer at our house and had given us full use of it. With the disc from Robert and with Susan’s computer, I was up and running again by Monday morning. Katherine was available just as I realized I had a need. The right support seemed to appear at the right time.
Last, but not least, has been the important role of my husband, Randy, and son, Jesse. This doctoral process has demanded a new level of flexibility and autonomy on their parts. I have been unavailable for 3 hours of every morning, 6 days a week, for 3 years. For them, this has meant making breakfast, doing farm chores, and getting off to work and school without help from me. Randy also offered many hours of editorial feedback on works in process. I always appreciated an extra pair of eyes and a fresh perspective on a paper. Without Randy and Jesse’s willingness to make adjustments and to support me whole-heartedly in this endeavor, I could not have done this. I have been a doctoral student for nearly a third of Jesse’s life at this point. I hope that he has not only learned that his mom isn’t always available, but has also learned a little about commitment, perseverance, and the value of following a passion.
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Research Study 7
Explanation of Terms 10
Significance of the Study 19
Summary 20
Chapter Two: Literature Review 23
Introduction 23
The Rural Context 24
Perceptions and Myths About Rural Areas 25
The Rural Rebound 27
Rural Strengths 28
Three Examples of Rural Communities in the United States 29
Lubec, Maine 29
Red Star, Arkansas 32
Viroqua, Wisconsin 35
Rural Education 37
Influences on the Development of Visionary Grassroots Education 43
Popular Education 44
Folk Education 46
Public Homeplace Learning 46
Indigenous Education 46
Experiential Education 47
Alternative Education 48
Postmodern Perspectives 48
Features of Visionary Grassroots Education 52
Public 53
Place-based 55
Relational 61
Catalysts for Visionary Grassroots Education 63
Philosophical Lens—What is Education For? 64
Historical Lens 65
Lens of Equity, Justice, and Democracy 70
Lens of Living Systems 73
Living Systems in Summary 78
Lens of Humanity 78
Lens of Cultural and Societal Trends 81
Lens of Child Development and Neurological Potential 84
Lens of School Size 87
Lens of School Facilities 90
Page
Types of Visionary Grassroots Education 91
Homeschooling and Learning Cooperatives 93
Community Learning Centers 100
Innovative Schools 103
Folk Schools 104
Research on Success and Sustainability in Visionary Grassroots
Education Initiatives 107
Innovative Schools 108
Community Organizing and Community Development 110
Rural Education Research 115
Summary of the Research Literature 116
Chapter Summary 119
Chapter Three: Methodology 122
Introduction 122
Theoretical and Methodological Foundation 122
Action Research 122
Appreciative Inquiry 125
Case Study Methods 126
Case Study Sites 128
Youth Initiative High School—Viroqua, Wisconsin 129
Cobscook Community Learning Center—Lubec, Maine 130
Headwaters School—Red Star, Arkansas 130
Participants 131
Data Collection Procedures 132
Observation 132
Documents 132
Interviews 133
Data Analysis 136
Researcher Bias 137
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 138
Summary 140
Chapter Four: Results 143
Introduction 143
Qualitative Data Results 143
Identity 145
Youth Initiative High School 145
History 145
Mission 148
Facility 148
Program 148
Vision 151
Cobscook Community Learning Center 152
Page
History 152
Mission 154
Facility 154
Program 155
Vision 157
Headwaters School 158
History 159
Mission 162
Facility 163
Program 163
Vision 164
Summary 165
Infrastructure and Organization 169
Leadership and Decision-Making 169
YIHS 169
CCLC 170
Headwaters 170
Funding and Accessibility 171
YIHS 171
CCLC 172
Headwaters 172
Summary 173
Spirit 177
YIHS 177
CCLC 177
Headwaters 178
Summary 178
Earth, Community, and Global Connections 179
YIHS 179
CCLC 180
Headwaters 180
Summary 181
Challenges and Crises 182
YIHS 182
CCLC 183
Headwaters 185
What is Success? 187
YIHS 188
CCLC 189
Headwaters 190
How is Sustainability Built? 192
YIHS 192
CCLC 192
Headwaters 193
Page
Summary 193
Chapter Five: Results and Comparative Analysis 195
Introduction 195
Organizational Differences Among the Sites 195
Learning from Challenges 197
The Role of the Identity of the Initiators, Local Geography,
Societal Trends, and Paradigm Shift 198
Living Systems, Sustainability, and Visionary Grassroots Education Initiatives 205
Context 207
YIHS 207
CCLC 207
Headwaters 207
Cooperation 208
YIHS 208
CCLC 208
Headwaters 208
Creativity 209
YIHS 209
CCLC 209
Headwaters 209
Cycles and Patterns 209
YIHS 209
CCLC 210
Headwaters 210
Diversity 210
YIHS 210
CCLC 210
Headwaters 211
Dynamic Balance and Renewal 212
YIHS 212
CCLC 212
Headwaters 212
Self-Organizing 212
YIHS 213
CCLC 213
Headwaters 213
Relationship 213
YIHS 214
CCLC 214
Headwaters 214
Wholeness and Complexity 215
YIHS 215
CCLC 215
Page
Headwaters 215
Common Elements in All Three Organizations 216
Summary 218
Chapter Six: Conclusions 220
Introduction 220
Major Findings from the Study Related to Theory and Practice 221
Alignment with the Literature 221
Key Elements in Success and Sustainability in Three Visionary Grassroots
Education Initiatives 229
Recommendations for Further Research 235
Summary 236
References 240
Appendix A: Interview Questions 263
Appendix B: Informed Consent 265
Appendix C: Youth Initiative High School Core Values Document 267
List of Tables
Page
Table 1: Site Information and Demographics 167
Table 2: Infrastructure, Resources, and Organization 175
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1: Quintessential Human Qualities 80
Figure 2: Core Values of Youth Initiative High School 204
Figure 3: Core Values of Cobscook Community Learning Center 204
Figure 4: Core Values of Headwaters School 204
Figure 5: Common Themes 217
Figure 6: Domains of the Successful and Sustainable Visionary Grassroots
Education Initiative 232
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Like many Americans, I listened and watched with horror as Hurricane Katrina swept across the Gulf coast in August of 2005. As an educator, I was particularly interested in hearing about schools and children in the wake of Katrina. In the following months, I heard only brief reports about New Orleans’ schools, and nothing as I had idealistically hoped, about visionary educators who saw an opportunity for positive change in the disaster. Then in the spring, I began listening to interviews with Malik Rahim (Eirene, 2006), reading material on the website of the Common Ground Collective that Rahim founded, and talking with individuals who had volunteered with Common Ground. Here was an organization that was finding potential and hope in the rubble. Rahim, a native of New Orleans, committed himself and the Common Ground Collective to rebuilding New Orleans’ neighborhoods with a vision of sustainability and justice. In education, this has meant saying “No” to corporate take-overs and empowering people in local neighborhoods to become actively involved in providing education to learners of all ages. Common Ground has initiated a number of community-based educational projects since Hurricane Katrina such as childcare cooperatives, after school youth programs, and summer school programs (Common Ground website).
In addition, the leaders of Common Ground have a desire to create community schools that are open to all and not controlled by the government. They want schools where families are intimately involved, where curriculum reflects children’s developmental needs and learning styles, and where the content and structure of the school reflects and is sensitive to the local culture and the environment (Kids and Community Staff, 2006). Their vision is a courageous one in a climate of increasing involvement of the federal government and high stakes testing; however, Rahim recognized that such an education is what is needed to truly regenerate the heart as well as the infrastructure of neighborhoods.
The vision held by Rahim and others of the Common Ground Collective is connected to a growing grassroots movement that seeks a radically different educational approach for children and communities. The Common Ground Collective is an urban project that inspired me to pay attention to and reflect on similar projects taking place in rural areas. This dissertation research was a comprehensive case study of three rural schools or educational organizations that are examples of visionary grassroots education initiatives. The research included 38 interviews that focused on the practices and core values of initiatives. From the key themes that emerged across the three sites, a picture of how successful projects are created and sustained was built.
In the last 2 decades, grassroots organizations have proliferated, along with a renaissance in ideas around community-based learning, both globally and in the United States (Ellis, 2000; Miller, 2000; UNESCO, 2000). Leaders of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognized that these grassroots developments have been inspired by popular education, particularly the work of Freire (e.g., 2000), by research emerging from the new sciences (e.g., Zohar & Marshall, 1994), by research on local cultures and knowledge (e.g., Oliver, Canniff, & Korhonen, 2002) and by current research on multiple intelligences and the development of human potential (e.g., Jensen, 2005).
In the United States, one grassroots education movement in particular has shown dramatic growth. In 1980, the United States had approximately 12,000 homeschoolers. Today, nearly 2 million people are homeschooling, a growth rate of 20% annually (Mintz, 2000). I discuss this significant growth rate further in chapter 2. Miller, writing as the editor of a volume of collected writings entitled Creating Learning Communities, described new educational initiatives in the United States as “spontaneous manifestations of a true grassroots movement in education” (p. 12) that is emerging from parents, educators, and social critics who are seeking more meaningful ways of living and learning. He went so far as to say that “an educational revolution is underway, and it is gaining momentum” (p. 12).
In my own rural community, growth in a variety of grassroots educational alternatives has occurred in the last 2 ½ decades. Viroqua, a rural Wisconsin community of 4,000, has the following community-initiated education alternatives: a charter high school, two elementary schools affiliated with religious organizations, a K-8 Waldorf school, a student-initiated high school (one of the sites for this research), at least two homeschool cooperatives, Driftless Folk School, and a recently formed group working to create a farm school for all ages.
Grassroots education projects occur in urban and rural settings as well as in public and private settings. One example of a rural project in a public school setting that has had a profound impact on how students learn and think about life, as well as on the attitudes and values of the community as a whole, is a project in the small town of Whitwell, Tennessee (Weinstein & Weinstein, 2004). It began as a simple classroom project at the request of the principal. She asked middle school social studies teachers to create a holocaust education class as a starting point for teaching about tolerance. During the project, students were deeply affected by the massive scale of the holocaust and decided to collect something to represent all the lives that were lost. They decided upon paper clips because they were invented by a Norwegian Jew, and they were worn by Norwegians on their lapels during World War Two to symbolize their protest against Nazi policies. The students in Whitwell collected 6 million paperclips to represent the 6 million Jews killed during the Nazi era. Student commitment to and enthusiasm for the project led to widespread involvement of the community and eventually to world-wide attention. Hearts and minds were transformed through this simple grassroots learning project. In 2004, an award-winning documentary, Paper Clips, was released that tells the story (Fab, Johnson, & Pinchot). Today, in Whitwell, Tennessee, just miles from the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan, a permanent holocaust memorial has been established, run primarily by students of the local school. The impact of this project continues to have a ripple effect. I offer this story as an example of the wide variety of grassroots education initiatives and the potential impact they can have on communities. This dissertation is focused on one small category of grassroots education initiatives, visionary projects that occur in rural settings outside of public education.
Miller (2000) and Schlechty (2001), educational advocates for decades, have identified grassroots initiatives such as learning centers and learning cooperatives as a source of hope for the future of education. They have indicated that these fledgling grassroots initiatives may be a prophetic voice for educational futures. Other authors have concurred. Ellis (2000) described learning centers as “among the most seminal innovations of the past decade” and said that “they may be the seeds for a deep, fundamental change in the education learning system of the future” (p. 19). L’Amoreaux (2000) identified the growth of community learning centers “as one of the most exciting developments on the learning horizon today” (p. 166). Belenky, a co-author of A Tradition That Has No Name (Belenky, Bond, & Winestock, 1997), reflected after a visit to one grassroots initiative, the Cobscook Community Learning Center (CCLC), one of the sites of this research, “The CCLC has the potential of becoming a model program of great significance . . . . CCLC embraces a remarkable number of qualities that enabled earlier institutions to become powerful forces for transformation” (CCLC Website, para. 19).
Visionary grassroots education initiatives such as the Common Ground Collective and CCLC can be supported and strengthened through greater understanding of what grows success and makes it possible for such initiatives to endure over time. This chapter contains an introduction to the topic of visionary grassroots initiatives in the United States, an overview of the research, and a definition of terms that are central in this dissertation.
Statement of the Problem
Changes in education are crucial in the face of social and ecological crises (Orr, 1992), the radically changing nature of global society (Bowers, 2000), and an emerging systemic worldview (Capra, 2002). The current system of education in the U.S. was designed in the 1800s to meet the needs of industrial society. Some authors have expressed concern that many of the features of the system do not serve present needs, such as its hierarchical organization (Clinchy, 2007; Miller, 2000; Sarason, 2000; Senge et al., 2000; Tyack, 1974), bureaucratic leadership (Clinchy; Miller; Sarason; Senge et al.; Tyack), deeply embedded structural inequalities (Kozol, 2005; Lipman, 2006; Tyack), textbook-driven curriculum (Clinchy; Miller; Sarason; Senge et al..; Tyack), disconnection from the local context (Clinchy; Lipman; Miller; Sarason; Senge et al.), heavy focus on cognitive aspects of learning (Clinchy; Miller; Sarason; Senge et al), and a Western bias (Clinchy; Miller). For example, Clinchy (2007) summarized the system this way:
The present organizational structure of our Western system of education—and especially the structure of our scientifically managed, factory-model American public school system—is culturally and educationally obsolete. It is not a system equipped to promote the full range of human intelligence granted us by our evolutionary heritage and needed by our still exploding knowledge business. (p. 106)
In addition, a loss of public control and voice in education can be seen in the imposition of high-stakes testing, the push for standardized curriculum, and an emphasis on economic, corporate, and government interests (Emery, 2005; Emery & Ohanian, 2004). Educational philosopher, Hutchinson (2004), reflecting on the loss of public engagement and democracy in education in recent years, asserted that educators must re-create education that is grassroots, is local, and emphasizes community.
A number of educators have described a growing place for grassroots education alternatives outside of the existing system (e.g., Ellis, 2000; Hutchinson, 2004; Miller, 2000; Schlechty, 2001). Education advocates are encouraging teachers, parents, students, and others to oppose the high-stakes testing agenda and the corporatization of schooling by supporting grassroots initiatives that build democracy and community, support social justice, integrate the local environment, and create innovative, new visions for education (Emery & Ohanian, 2004; Hutchinson, 2004; Miller, 2000). Although researchers have not documented definite numbers except for homeschooling, some authors have indicated that growing numbers of families, organizations, and communities are seeking educational alternatives that are better designed for the present age and are more responsive to the needs of children, families, and the local context (e.g,. Ellis, 2000; Miller, 2000). Hutchinson (2004) asserted that re-creating education with an emphasis on the grassroots and community is a huge project, yet not doing so involves great costs to society.
The need for grassroots initiatives has been clearly expressed by a number of education advocates. Communities are seeking to create them. Very little research has been done on these initiatives (Belenky, personal communication, March 26, 2007; Firth, personal communication, February 12, 2007; R. Miller, personal communication, March 2, 2007; Spicer, personal communication, March 11, 2007). How can communities be supported in their endeavors to provide educational alternatives that are successful and sustainable? Marshall (1997) proposed an exploration of the conditions and guiding principles that could govern the creation of sustainable learning communities and transform the existing industrial paradigm of schooling. Research is critical for generating the knowledge and understanding to support the healthy and sustainable development of such grassroots projects. In this study, I sought to address these issues.
Purpose of the Research Study
This research was an appreciative study that addressed two questions: What are the key elements that create success in grassroots education initiatives? What features or activities support the sustainability of success in grassroots education initiatives? The research responded to three gaps in the literature: a) research on grassroots education initiatives is limited; b) research on qualitative aspects of success in alternative environments is minimal (Gallego, Rueda, & Moll, 2005); c) much of the research on current reform and innovation has been in urban schools, resulting in a paucity of research that examines how rural communities are using the local environment in educational innovations (Bauch, 2001; Sherwood, 2000).
Rural issues and innovations are largely underrepresented in the national education dialogue, even though 40% of the nation’s school districts are in rural areas (Johnson & Strange, 2007). Rural areas face issues as pressing as urban areas, have as much diversity, and have 17% more poverty (Beeson & Strange, 2000). Researchers have pointed out gaps and shortcomings in rural research (e.g., Arnold, 2005; Bauch, 2001; Sherwood, 2000). Sherwood stressed that “Rural education research has been misunderstood, underfunded, unencouraged and, taken as a whole, the resulting collection of work has suffered for it, according to many observers” (p. 159).
Arnold (2005) has described rural schools as “the poor country cousins of the U.S. education system” (para. 1) and has insisted that the needs of rural communities have, to a large extent, been ignored by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). Rural schools often must implement policy that was designed for urban and suburban schools. Another example of the lack of support for rural education is seen in the action of The Institute of Education Sciences (part of the USDE). They eliminated the Clearinghouse of Rural Education and Small Schools as part of a restructuring of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) (Arnold). One important thing that the USDE did for rural schools was publish The Condition of Education in Rural Schools (Stern, 1994). This was a comprehensive report of the condition of education in rural communities. Unfortunately, the USDE has chosen not to update the report, and researchers, educators, and policy-makers do not have access to comprehensive information from the federal government about rural schools more recent than 1994. Arnold asserted that this sends a clear message that “the USDE is unwilling to allocate resources once every 10 years to produce a rural education report to guide policy making and better support rural communities” (para. 11).
Another example of the limited information available to educators on rural education and rural issues was demonstrated at the 2007 American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual conference. The conference boasted a catalog with 359 pages of conference offerings (AERA, 2007). An examination of the topic of “Rural Education” in the index yielded 13 sessions, or about one page of listings. Upon closer examination of the 13 sessions, only five were specifically and exclusively about rural education issues such as “Gender, Race, and Class Intersections with Rural Education.” The remaining eight sessions were broad topics in which one of the panel presenters represented a rural area, such as a session on “Professional Development Schools,” in which one of the presenters was from a professional development school in a rural area. As a rural educator, it is unacceptable that a national research conference would have less than one page of offerings out of 359 pages that specifically address the learning context of close to half of the nation’s school districts. This dissertation contributes to much-needed research in the area of rural education.
My objective was to examine community-initiated, rural projects that are creating new visions for education and to examine what makes them successful and sustainable. The findings from this study can be used to provide support for rural communities and grassroots organizations seeking to create innovative educational alternatives. Cobscook Community Learning Center in Maine, one of the sites for this research, chose to participate because of their desire for research to bolster their work, as well as to assist in sharing their model with other rural communities (Furth, personal communication, Feb. 1, 2007).
Esteva and Prakash (1998) identified a need for “discourse to articulate the wide variety of contemporary grassroots initiatives” (p. 198). Ladson-Billings and Tate (2006), in their recent book, gave voice to a number of experienced researchers who expressed the need for educational research that is focused on the broader public good. “Broader public good,” or “public interest,” is defined as “those decisions and actions that further democracy, democratic practices, equity, and social justice” (p. 231). This is the understanding of public good, public interest, or common good that is applied in this study. In the third part of the book, grassroots activism is addressed. In this section, Blumenfeld-Jones (2006) encouraged educational researchers to pursue research at the grassroots level. My research addresses both of these issues: the need to observe the variety of education initiatives at the grassroots, and the need to observe how they are successfully serving the public interest or the public good in small, rural communities.
My research was a comprehensive case study of three rural schools or educational organizations that are examples of visionary grassroots education. The schools or organizations selected were initiated from within the community; are located in rural areas; are situated outside of the public school framework; are striving to be accessible to all; have a history of at least 9 years; are based on democratic processes; support intergenerational learning; and encourage cultural understanding, collaboration, and place-based experiences. The individual sites do not necessarily have all the elements of visionary grassroots education initiatives, nor are they perfect models, but taken together, they build a picture of the variety and the core values shared by initiatives. Data were gathered through: on-site observations; interviews with administrators, teachers, students, parents, board members, and community members; and the examination of documentary artifacts. From the key themes that emerged, a picture of how successful projects are created and sustained was built.
Explanation of Terms
• Grassroots Education.
“Grassroots education” is a term commonly used in Latin America (Streck, 2003) where such projects are called grupos bases (Salzman, 2004). This refers to groups of people who work on behalf of the local people, and the work is initiated and carried out by the local people. Grassroots education is not a term in common use in U.S. education, but it is closely related to People’s Education, which is an umbrella term used in the United States to describe educational approaches for adults that are community-based and focused on democratic social change (Spicer, 2000). Those involved in People’s Education believe that the purpose of education is personal growth and creativity, along with interpersonal and community growth and development (Spicer). I have not found a term that is being applied to similar community-based education initiatives for children as well as adults and is taking place outside of mainstream education. I have chosen to use the term, grassroots education, rather than People’s Education, for three reasons. First, most forms of People’s Education have historically served adults, and I seek to address education for all levels of students. Second, I want to expand the content of People’s Education. Generally focused on older youth and adults, People’s Education is often focused on issues. In bringing empowering, community-based education to younger children, more comprehensive curriculum can be included in grassroots education. And third, I want to emphasize the local and public nature of education through the term, grassroots, which carries a connotation of activity at the most basic level, close to home and the common people (Hutchinson, 2004).
A definition of grassroots education emerges from the broader definition of grassroots initiatives, as well as from descriptions of grassroots learning in a number of contexts. Esteva and Prakash (1998) offered this definition:
Grassroots initiatives are organized by “the people” themselves, for their own survival, flourishing and enduring; both independent from and antagonistic to the state in its formal and corporative structures . . . . mainly expressed in reclaimed or regenerated commons in both urban and rural settings, and clearly concerned with the common good, both natural and social. (p. 13)
Salzman (2004), a physicist at the University of Massachusetts who has been involved in numerous grassroots projects, especially in Latin America, has articulated a similar definition. He described grassroots initiatives as those that “are neither connected with the government or corporate-based, but which arise spontaneously in response to unmet local needs” (para. 8). Several authors have offered descriptions of learning or education at the grassroots. Esteva, Stuchul, and Prakash (2005) described grassroots projects as “creative, convivial initiatives that widen their capacity for learning, studying, and for doing” (p. 28). Another author, Teran (2005), has also been involved with grassroots projects. He referred to these projects as “vernacular education” (p. 71) and observed that “working against a sense of fragmentation of core cultural narratives, many communities are seeking to reconstruct their stories, to regenerate those cultural spaces that define and give meaning to their lives” (p. 71).
Prakash (personal communication, June 7, 2007) suggested two ways of looking at grassroots education. Grassroots education can be found within the institutional framework of schooling in the form of innovative schools in both the public and private sectors. They are part of formal education, and participation in these educational alternatives leads to degrees, diplomas, or certificates. The story of the small school in rural Tennessee and their holocaust project is an example of a public, grassroots learning project. In the private sector, the work of Dewey (1938), Steiner (1920), Montessori (2002), Gardner (1991), and Neill (1995), among others, has inspired grassroots groups to create alternative schools. In this dissertation research, Youth Initiative High School (YIHS), though unconventional in their approach, is part of the formal educational framework.
The other way of looking at grassroots education is the informal approach to teaching and learning outside of the institutional framework, such as those described in the previous paragraph by Esteva et al. (2005) and by Teran (2005). In the U.S., the work of Illich (1971), Holt (1976), Grundtvig (Lawson, 1991), and Horton (Adams & Horton, 1995) has inspired numerous grassroots initiatives. Folk schools, learning centers, homeschooling, and learning cooperatives fall into this category of informal approaches that do not offer degrees or diplomas and focus on local cultural knowledge and skills as well as community and personal development. The other two sites for this dissertation research, Cobscook Community Learning Center (CCLC) and Headwaters School, are in this category.
These definitions of grassroots initiatives and grassroots learning applied to education describe education that is initiated by local people without government or corporate influence and that seeks to address local learning. This can encompass a broad range of initiatives from religious conservatives and those with political agendas to those interested in developmentally appropriate education approaches, all who aim to address local learning. In this study, I examined what I call visionary grassroots education, a specific category of grassroots initiatives where the people who are involved hold a different vision than the mainstream of the purposes and processes of learning. Visionary grassroots education can encompass all learning for all ages of students. It includes features from various forms of People’s Education, as well as other pedagogical approaches such as popular education, folk education, indigenous education, public homeplace learning, and experiential education. Visionary grassroots education initiatives take a variety of forms in the U.S., such as community learning centers, learning cooperatives, innovative independent schools, and folk schools. These initiatives can supplement, enrich, or replace traditional school programs. I present an expanded description of visionary grassroots education in chapter 2. In this dissertation, when I use the term grassroots education, it refers to visionary grassroots initiatives.
Visionary grassroots initiatives are not a proposal for systemic reform, but for the creation of vibrant, publicly accessible alternatives whose leaders and participants hold a different vision of what education is for and how it serves children and communities. In addition, grassroots education advocates do not propose initiatives as a new system to replace the old one. The concept of “one best system” to serve everyone is obsolete (Clinchy, 2007; Miller, 2000; Tyack, 1974). Clinchy, in his most recent book, Rescuing the Public Schools: What it Will Take to Leave No Child Behind (2007), advocated that public education in a democracy means that “there should not be any single approach, any single way of educating the young that is arbitrarily imposed on all students, all parents, all schools, and all school systems . . . . it means offering a wide range of different kinds of schooling” (p. 106). It is critically important that public alternatives be created for a myriad of reasons that are outlined in-depth in chapter 2. What is needed is a “multiplicity of models” (Noddings, 1995, p. 368) that support and strengthen diversity. Grassroots learning communities are one way to explore alternatives to the mainstream system.
• Education
The initiatives in this study are described as visionary grassroots education initiatives. Education is also a term that warrants discussion. Scholars and practitioners define education in different ways. In some contexts, education refers to the institutional system of formal schools, the education system. Education is also what happens in schools, and the end result is diplomas, certificates, or degrees. In addition, scholars speak of education as a process that takes place in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes and is the interactive experience of teaching and learning.
For some, grassroots education is a contradiction of terms. Education has a general connotation of an institution or a formalized framework. Grassroots implies something from the people and outside of established institutional frameworks. Prakash and Esteva (1998) are two writers who intentionally avoid the use of the term education and have refused to classify as education the myriad forms of living, teaching, and learning at the grassroots. In their book, Escaping Education: Living and Learning at the Grassroots, they explored these traditions of living, teaching, and learning that they do not equate with education. Esteva, Prakash, and Stuchul (2005) explained their avoidance of the term, education, this way:
When learning . . . was redefined as education and the traditional freedom and capacity for learning in commons was ruled out or severely restricted, millions of people were transmogrified into the uneducated or undereducated, desperately in need of educational services, always scarce and insufficient for the majority . . . . Insomuch as the noun “education” imposes a completely passive dependence on the system that provides education, people are substituting this noun with the verbs “to learn” and “to study.” Unlike the noun, these verbs establish the autonomous capacity for building creative relationships with others and with nature, relationships that generate knowledge and wisdom. People are again acknowledging that to know is a personal experience, and that the only way to know, to widen the competencies for living, is to learn from the world, not about the world. (pp. 18, 28)
Their work has been inspired by Illich (1971), who believed that educational institutions interfered with the ability of people, particularly the poor, to “take control of their own learning” (p. 8). He questioned the assumptions that children belong in school and that school should be the primary context for learning and teaching. He saw the educational institution of schools as a product of industrial society and the culture of bureaucracy, consumerism, and increased growth and production. Illich advocated for alternatives to education rather than educational alternatives. Holt (1976), a leader in the homeschool movement for many years, also raised similar questions and worked for many years to support alternatives to formalized education.
Although in this dissertation I raise a number of issues about the institutional system of education, I chose to retain the term education in the title and throughout the dissertation. I gave considerable thought to what to call these initiatives since I could find no general term in use. I looked to the sites themselves, the kind of work they do, and how they talk about their work. Two of the three sites in this research, CCLC and Headwaters, do not offer degrees or certificates and emphasize more of an informal approach to sharing locally-based knowledge and skills. At YIHS, which is a diploma-granting high school, people spoke of educare, the Latin root of the word, education, which means to draw out, as they described their approach to working with students. At YIHS, the focus is not on filling the students with knowledge, but on calling forth and supporting the talents that already live within each student. Teachers do so in a way that honors the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of living. These sites do not fit a traditional educational framework, and yet, people at all three of the sites used the term, education, in referring to their work. Other terms that I considered, such as learning communities, were awkward grammatically, did not fully encompass the diversity of the projects, and were not used at all of the sites. Although the use of the term, education, is a compromise because of the institutional framework associated with it, I nevertheless chose to use it in this dissertation. It is used to refer to an interactive process of learning and teaching that takes place in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes. Grassroots education is not meant to imply a formalized system of any kind.
• Rural
What defines an area or a town as rural has been frequently debated (National Agricultural Library, 2006). The most common definition of rural comes from the U.S.Census Bureau (2002) based on the 2000 census, which defines rural as an area “outside urbanized areas, in open country or in communities with less than 2,500 inhabitants or where the population density is less than 1,000 inhabitants per square mile” (para. 5). The census classified 25% of the total population as rural and 97.5% of the total U. S. land as rural. Of the nation’s school districts, 40% are in rural areas (Johnson & Strange, 2007). One fourth of America’s school children attend public schools in rural areas or towns less than 25,000, and 14% go to school in towns fewer than 2,500 people (Beeson & Strange, 2000).
• Success
Ernst and Statzner (1994) suggested that definitions of success should not be limited to traditional measures such as test scores or grades. They argued that “success is a socially constructed and culturally embedded variable” (p. 202). Ernst and Statzner’s approach to success guided this dissertation research on success and sustainability in grassroots education initiatives. This study was designed to examine the factors that contributed to success at each site and the factors that supported the sustainability of that success. Success was examined from three perspectives in this dissertation: the perspectives of the participants at each site, my perspective as a researcher, and a comparison with qualities of success described in the literature by other researchers and practitioners.
• Sustainability
The term, sustainable, has come into frequent use in recent years in both the general culture and in academia. Indian physicist and ecofeminist, Shiva (1992), explained that the term, sustainability, is derived from sustain, which means to “support, bear weight of, hold up, enable to last out, give strength to, endure without giving way” (p. 191). Applied to education and this dissertation, this means learning contexts that are designed in such a way to continue to serve a community for the long term. Marshall (1997), former director of the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, spoke of “dynamically sustainable learning communities” (p. 177). She saw the foundation for educational sustainability as contexts that allow for the continual creation and exchange of knowledge. This involves an understanding of human learning systems as dynamic, adaptive, organic, and generative. Sustainable learning systems are “inherently designed to renew themselves and to grow and change” (Marshall, p. 181). Smith and Williams (1999) added that the core value of educational sustainability is relationships between people and the world. Tickell (1996) described a similar understanding of education and sustainability. He described interconnectedness as the root of sustainability in education. Interconnectedness can mean many things: interconnectedness between and across disciplines, between school and community, between organizations, and between the community and the local environment. In this study, I examined the sustainability of grassroots education initiatives, which included how they are designed to endure over time and to build interconnections among people and the environment. Initiatives in this research were established 9 to 34 years ago.
• School
“School” is a word that for most people carries a connotation of a building with classrooms where students sit at desks and receive instruction from a teacher (Martin, 2000). Many people involved with grassroots educational alternatives intentionally choose not to call themselves a school because they do not want the traditional conceptions of education and learning to be associated with their endeavor (Martin, 2000; Parson, 1999). They believe that in order to create a large change in educational institutions, a new descriptive name is required. Learning centers and learning cooperatives are both examples of this choice. In this dissertation, I use the word, school, in the spirit of Martin’s definition, which says that “school implies those places where people gather intentionally to learn (with no implications of what, why, or how)” (p. 2).
• Community
Throughout this paper, the term, community, is used. In some places, this refers to a town or part of a town. It also refers to an association of people that provides the relational caring and sense of belonging that connects people with the world beyond themselves (Parson, 1999). These associations often form around a shared purpose. Community, of either definition, provides the diverse human interactions that make life interesting, meaningful, and enjoyable. Peck (1987) has emphasized that in community, a collective energy forms that is both stronger and different than the individual. For him, the guiding principle in community is unity in diversity.
Significance of the Study
A study of success and sustainability in grassroots education initiatives is of value to scholars who are interested in the areas of grassroots education, rural education, educational change and innovation, and paradigm shift and sustainability. Limited knowledge and research are available on grassroots education initiatives, rural education, and qualitative aspects of success in educational contexts. This dissertation research addressed these gaps in the research and scholarly literature. The research provided information about the types of grassroots initiatives, their roles in rural communities, and their strengths and challenges in achieving success and sustainability. This information can inform the work of scholars, researchers, and policy makers, as well as practitioners.
This study also offers important insights and information for practitioners who are involved in new or existing grassroots initiatives and for practitioners involved in educational innovation and change in a variety of contexts. People at all of the sites in this study have a desire to learn from those in other initiatives in order to strengthen their own organization. In the rural area where I live, two grassroots education groups have formed in the last 2 years, a learning cooperative and a folk school, and people in both have expressed an interest in the outcomes of this research. The challenges of starting an initiative are many, and groups have a desire to learn from the experience of other initiatives (Schaefer & Voors, 1996).
In numerous fields such as agriculture, economics, and environmental studies, concepts of sustainability are being discussed and designs explored that are based in living systems (Edwards, 2005). New operational paradigms are emerging in many of these fields, as well. Mainstream education is operating heavily within a system designed in the mid-1800s. People involved in grassroots education initiatives are exploring educational approaches outside of the dominant educational paradigm. As such, they offer seeds of change for the future. This study can contribute to the dialogue about the role of grassroots education initiatives in educational change and in the creation of a sustainable way of life. This can impact practice, as well as policy.
Summary
This chapter presented an introduction to the topic of grassroots education initiatives, the need for research on these initiatives, particularly in rural areas, and the nature of this dissertation research. The following terms were defined in this chapter: grassroots education, visionary grassroots education initiatives, education, rural, success, sustainability, school, and community. Grassroots education initiatives are projects that are initiated by local people without government or corporate influence and that seek to address local learning. In the last 2 decades, grassroots organizations have proliferated in the U.S., along with a renaissance in ideas around community-based learning (Miller, 2000). The current system of education in the U.S. was designed in the 1800s to meet the needs of industrial society. Some authors have expressed concern that many of the features of the system do not serve present needs (Clinchy, 2007; Miller, 2000; Sarason, 2000; Senge et al., 2000). As a result, a number of educators have described a growing place for grassroots education alternatives outside of the existing system (e.g., Ellis, 2000; Hutchinson, 2004; Miller, 2000; Schlechty, 2001).
The need for grassroots initiatives has been clearly expressed by a number of education advocates, and communities are seeking to create them. This dissertation research was motivated by the question: How can communities be supported in their endeavors to provide educational alternatives that are successful and sustainable? This research was an appreciative study designed to address these research questions: What are the key elements that create success in grassroots education initiatives? What features or activities support the sustainability of success in grassroots education initiatives? The research responded to three gaps in the literature: a) research on grassroots education initiatives is limited; b) research on qualitative aspects of success in alternative environments is minimal (Gallego et al., 2005); c) much of the research on current reform and innovation has been in urban schools, resulting in a paucity of research that examines how rural communities are using the local environment in educational innovations (Bauch, 2001; Sherwood, 2000). Rural issues and innovations are largely underrepresented in the national education dialogue, even though 40% of the nation’s school districts are in rural areas (Johnson & Strange, 2007). The findings from this study can be used to provide support for rural communities and grassroots organizations seeking to create innovative educational alternatives. This research can inform the work of scholars, researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners.
This dissertation continues with a review of the literature in chapter 2, which includes a discussion of rural issues related to education, the philosophical and pedagogical background of grassroots education, the reasons for the emergence of grassroots education, the research that supports general characteristics of grassroots education, and a description of types of grassroots initiatives. The literature review also includes a section of research and theory related to success and sustainability in schools and organizations with similarities to grassroots education. Chapter 3 contains a description of the cultures of inquiry that inform this study and the research methodology. I present qualitative data and analyses in chapters 4 and 5. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of the research findings in chapter 6.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
A number of education advocates are encouraging teachers, parents, students, and others to oppose the high-stakes testing agenda and the corporatization of schooling by supporting grassroots education initiatives that build community, support democracy and social justice, integrate the local environment, and create innovative, new visions for education (e.g., Hutchinson, 2004; Miller, 2000). Grassroots initiatives in rural areas are the focus of this research, and the literature review begins with a discussion of the definition of rural, the strengths and challenges of rural areas, and educational issues in rural areas. The rural discussion is followed by an overview of the key influences on the development of grassroots education and a description of the central features of grassroots education. The chapter continues with information about the philosophical, historical, scientific, cultural, and pedagogical reasons or catalysts for grassroots education. Because grassroots education has strongly emerged only in the last decade and a half in the United States (Miller, 2000), understanding the reasons for its emergence and the issues addressed by grassroots education is foundational for looking at success and sustainability in these initiatives. After building a comprehensive picture of the inspirations and catalyzing factors for grassroots education, four types of initiatives will be described: learning cooperatives, community learning centers, folk schools, and innovative alternative schools.
Grassroots education is a hybrid phenomenon happening at the intersection of schooling and community development. The literature review continues with an examination of the research on success and sustainability in innovative schools and community development projects that can shape an understanding of the key elements that may contribute to success and sustainability in grassroots education. Research that specifically addresses success and sustainability in grassroots education initiatives was not located, and this dissertation research will strive to address that gap.
The Rural Context
Rural America is a term applied to a wide variety of places. Johnson (1999) described the diversity of rural settings this way:
Rural America is a deceptively simple term for a remarkably diverse collection of places and things; vast swaths of wheat and corn; auto plants on the outskirts of towns along I-75 in Kentucky and Ohio; catalog distribution centers along country lanes; small villages on pristine northern lakes; the cool mountainous forests of the Pacific northwest; and the flat humid spread of Florida’s everglades. (p. 12)
Rural areas are often pictures of extremes and contradictions. They can have high rates of poverty or be extremely wealthy. They can have no minorities or high numbers of minorities. Rural areas can be in decline or experiencing what Johnson (1999) has called the rural rebound. People in rural areas often rely on natural resources to support the economy and yet allow for environmental degradation that diminishes those resources. A surprising fact about rural America is the cultural and racial diversity. Almost half of the Native American population lives in rural areas, along with 15% of African Americans and 9% of Hispanics (Center for Rural Strategies). The following are general characteristics of rural communities:
Economic—A higher proportion of low-benefit, low wage jobs than in urban areas is common (Herzog & Pittman, 1995). Median family income in rural areas is about three fourths that of metropolitan areas. Poverty rates are higher.
Geographic—Isolation from urban or suburban areas is typical (Miller, 1993).
Educational—Rural residents generally achieve lower levels of formal education than urban residents (Bauch, 2001).
Social—Rural residents strongly identify with their place. A smallness of scale supports connections and relationships and contributes to a strong sense of community spirit. Traditional values include discipline, hard work, and importance of family and care for neighbors, connections to nature, and a sense of safety (Miller, B., 1995).
Perceptions and Myths About Rural Areas
A report from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2002) described perceptions that people have about rural areas. Based on 242 in-depth interviews conducted in 2001, 84% of respondents had positive opinions about rural areas and people, although these opinions were not necessarily based on direct experiences and often contained misconceptions about how rural communities operate and what they need for their sustainability. According to the survey, both rural and urban residents associate a number of values with rural life: hard work, a strong sense of family, commitment to community, deeply held religious beliefs, and self-sufficiency. These perceptions hold true in reality more in some places than in others.
Stereotypes of rural areas and people often inhibit understanding the great diversity in rural settings in the United States (Stern, 1994). Myths abound and continue to influence decisions and policies that affect rural people and places. In the following paragraphs, I present three common myths about rural people and places identified by the Center for Rural Strategies (2008).
One myth is that rural Americans are mostly farmers, and agriculture is the primary economic activity. In reality, farming is no longer the primary economic activity, and agriculture and its related activities account for less than 12% of rural employment (Center for Rural Strategies, 2008, Perspective 4). “Only 1.78% of rural residents earn their primary living from the farm” (para. 1). Although family farmers certainly still exist, technology is creating larger, factory-style farms that continue to decrease the number of people needed to grow food. Most people do not think of rural areas as having industrial centers, but “the proportion of the rural, nonfarm labor force employed in manufacturing is higher than metropolitan areas (19% vs. 12.8%)” (Johnson, 1999, p. 12). Rural industry includes, for example, meat processors, clothing manufacturers, auto parts makers, and manufacturers of computer equipment.
A second myth is that isolation makes rural places and people different (Center for Rural Strategies, 2008, Perspective, 3). A perception exists that rural areas are isolated from culture and current thought, as well as from the troubles of modern life. In reality, rural America is much less isolated than in the past and is certainly not immune to the problems of modern life. “We may perceive rural America as a bucolic place where people work hard, live clean, drink pure water, and fill their lungs with clean air, but heart disease, Type II diabetes, and other chromic illnesses related to the environment and lifestyle are epidemic in many rural places” (Center for Rural Strategies, Perspective 3, para. 4). In addition, “rural communities have the highest incidence of drug and alcohol addiction in the nation compared with suburban and inner city rates” (Browne, 2002, p. 19). The following three quotes from different sources are startling descriptions of rural poverty rates. “Nearly one quarter of rural residents live in poverty” (Browne, p. 19). “Rural poverty rates exceed urban rates in every region of the U.S. except the Northeast” (Center for Rural Strategies, Perspective 3, para. 6). “All but five of the nation’s 200 most persistently poor counties are rural” (Save the Children, 2002, p. 18).
Another pervasive myth is that of a single rural America. The size alone of rural America argues against one image of rural life. It stretches across seven time zones and as far north as Sweden and as far south as Egypt (Center for Rural Strategies, 2008). For many urban residents, images of rural America are shaped by experiences in rural recreational areas. “Imagining a serene rural existence is easier to do if you are summering on Cape Cod and wintering in Vail than if you are spending August in the Mississippi Delta and February in the northern Great Plains” (Center for Rural Strategies, para. 4).
The Rural Rebound
Most of the 20th century was characterized by a migration of mostly young men and women to urban areas for economic, social, and intellectual opportunities (Johnson, 1999). Between 1930 and 1970, at least 17 million people left rural areas. In some rural communities during this period, over half of the graduating class left within a year of graduation. Rural areas grew only when births exceeded deaths. The first signs of a change in this pattern began in the 1970s when the growth in rural population “actually exceeded the gain in metropolitan areas for the first time in at least 150 years” (Johnson, p. 1). More than 80% of rural counties experienced an increase in population during the 1970s.
The farm crisis of the 1980s disrupted this surge, but since 1990, many rural areas have seen a “rural rebound” (Johnson, 1999, p. 1). Johnson has documented this rebound in virtually every part of the country. Losses were seen only in the Mississippi Delta and the Great Plains. The growth has not been limited to certain types of areas or to a single age group. Between 1990 and 1998, 71% of nonmetropolitan counties gained in population. The rebound has been the result primarily of migration of urban residents to rural areas and fewer people leaving rural areas. Johnson pointed out that this is a rebound, not a reversal. In general, people are not returning to farming, but to what they perceive as “a better way of life in rural areas” (p. 1). This rebound, Johnson explained, is a result of a complex combination of economic, social, and demographic factors. These include: a spillover of population from metropolitan counties to adjacent rural counties; the loss of farmers due to the changes in agriculture has stabilized; communication technologies make rural areas less isolated and allow people with computer-based work to take their jobs with them to rural areas; retirees and those with mobile jobs are attracted to recreational opportunities; the cost of living in rural areas is generally lower; manufacturing and human services offer employment opportunities; a preference for living in a rural areas is growing; and more people have the freedom to choose where they want to live.
The rural rebound brings with it as many challenges and questions as benefits: revenue may grow more slowly than the demands for infrastructure, educational funding can be difficult in areas where population growth is a result of retirees, questions are raised about how to balance growth and preserve farmland along with traditional rural values and the agricultural way of life, and people hold fears about the impact of rapid growth on environmental quality (Johnson, 1999). Johnson has asked, “Will rural deconcentration, the gradual dispersal of the population into smaller, less densely settled areas, prove to be the same kind of powerful force in this century as urbanization was in the last century?” (p. 11).
Rural Strengths
Clearly, the challenges in rural areas are great. Yet rural areas have many strengths that inspire people who live there to find ways to stay and that inspire people to relocate there. Rural strengths include: a strong sense of community cohesiveness and community spirit (Herzog & Pittman, 1995; Johnson, 1999; Theobald & Nachtigal, 1995), a slower pace of life (Herzog & Pittman; Johnson; Theobald & Nachtigal), a greater sense of safety (Herzog & Pittman; Johnson; Theobald & Nachtigal), natural beauty (Herzog & Pittman; Johnson; Theobald & Nachtigal), access to local agricultural products (Theobald & Nachtigal), a generally quieter and cleaner environment (Herzog & Pittman; Johnson; Theobald & Nachtigal), a lower cost of living (Herzog & Pittman; Johnson; Theobald & Nachtigal), and remnants of craft skills and knowledge (Theobald & Nachtigal). Understanding and building on these strengths is key to rural education initiatives.
Three Examples of Rural Communities in the United States
Because of the great diversity found in rural areas, a more detailed description that represents some of this diversity is offered here. What follows are descriptions of three rural communities in the United States, including one in the Northeast, one in the South, and one in the Midwest. These descriptions are the rural contexts for the three case study sites in this research. The information is derived from personal contacts and experience in each area, as well as from published resources about the areas. They are presented here to provide a picture of some of the common themes, differences, strengths, contradictions, and challenges found in rural areas, as well as to create images for readers, especially those who are personally unfamiliar with life in rural areas. Detailed demographic information for each site is found in a chart that is included in the data in chapter 4.
Lubec, Maine
Lubec, Maine is located in a spectacularly beautiful area in the region of the Bay of Fundy, where the greatest rise and fall of tides in the continental U.S. occurs along the coast. Picturesque fishing villages are set against a backdrop of rocky coastline, sea, and sky. Washington County of northeast Maine is the easternmost county in the U.S., sharing a border with New Brunswick and covering an area larger than Delaware and Rhode Island, and with a population of 33,900 (Hinson, 2007). The two largest cities are Machias, population 2,353, and Calais, population 3,447. The county is 85% woodland, 8% lakes, 4% bogs and swamps, and 3% farmland. The nearest interstate highway, shopping mall, interstate bus service, and commercial airport are in Bangor, 109 miles from Lubec. The nearest passenger rail access is 131 miles away in Portland, Maine. Local writer, Hinson, described the area this way, “This is the legendary Way Down East, the last undeveloped coastline in the continental U.S. It is an area distinguished by what it lacks—tourist crowds, shopping malls, and traffic” (p. 8).
Local residents value many aspects of life in the scenic Cobscook Bay area, and also acknowledge that there are struggles as well. Historically, the primary industries have been fishing, lumber, and blueberries (Hinson, 2007). In recent years, the county has been experiencing an economic recession with sardine factories closing, lumber operations cutting back, and people moving away. Over-fishing and development along rivers, in addition to pesticide use, have nearly wiped out the salmon. According to a person who works with Maine Fisheries, only one salmon returned to the Denny’s River in 2007. A women’s advocate who works in Washington County described the economic situation as “more dire than we can even imagine” (personal communication, July 20, 2007). A young mother put it this way: “Most of the people that live here, live off the ocean, like clamming and fishing. You make whatever the tide brings in. For a lot of people, that’s just enough to feed and clothe their families” (personal communication, July 18, 2007). The poor economic environment and poverty have contributed to a social climate characterized by high stress, low self-esteem, high alcohol and drug use, broken families, and a loss of cultural identity.
Two reservations of the Passamaquoddy Tribe are located in Washington County. With almost 4000 members, the Passamaquoddy Tribe is the largest federally recognized tribe in New England. The Passamaquoddy were part of the Wabanaki Confederacy, and today, the Tribe is one of the most vibrant remaining centers of Algonquin culture in North America. The tribe has initiated a number of projects to preserve and keep alive the language and culture of the people (Wabanaki website). The reservation schools provide some instruction in Passamaquoddy and the Tribal Museum has a dictionary project underway. The elders hope that strengthening children’s connections to their tribal ways will deter them from turning to drugs and alcohol as they get older (Walsh, 1997).
Washington County has a long history of generational families and small, tightly knit communities. One person described the strengths of the local generational families this way, “People generally enjoy large, locally-based extended families and are steeped in the place-based wisdom of tradition and practical skills and knowledge. Residents of all ages were raised working together off the land and sea.” In the 1960s, an influx of people into the area began to shift the demographics of the region somewhat. These were primarily people looking for a different quality of life, sometimes referred to as “back-to-the-landers,” or “hippies” (McKibben in Ivanko & Kivirist, 2004, p. xv). Then, in recent years, another influx of people has occurred. This time, it is people with wealth who are drawn to the natural beauty of the area for investment, vacation, or retirement.
The economic situation and corresponding out-migration have resulted in drastic reductions in public school enrollment. The Lubec High School was built to accommodate 200 students and now has only 49. The music and art programs at the high school have been cut due to lack of funding. Many electives and extracurricular activities have been dropped. The economic situation has created in the schools what one person referred to as “institutionalized depression” (personal communication, July 20, 2007), with a pervasive lack of enthusiasm about teaching and learning. Some area residents feel that engaged educators are moving on, and the area’s rural schools are becoming a landing place for poor quality teachers.
In 2007, Maine had 89 school districts. In rural areas, these districts have covered a large geographic area, but with a small number of students. A new state mandate is requiring that the number of school districts in Maine be reduced to 75, with close to 1200 students in each district. The governor proposed this as a cost-cutting measure. It will have an enormous impact on rural areas like Washington County and is very controversial among local people. The three largest towns in Washington County have very small high schools by city standards. Lubec has 49 students, Callais 293, and Machias 133. The Lubec school will likely be closed, and students will be bussed to Machias, over 30 miles away. The consolidation will affect primarily high schools. The issue of consolidation is complex and controversial and is discussed later in this chapter.
The area has many homeschoolers for a variety of reasons. Families cite reasons such as: questionable quality of local schools, a desire to be closer as a family, a desire for real life learning experiences for their children rather than an institutional setting, and avoiding long bus rides.
Red Star, Arkansas
The drive from Fayetteville, Arkansas, a growing metropolitan area and university town, to Red Star is an hour of winding roads that lead into the Boston Range of the Ozark Mountains. Both the geography and the culture change dramatically in this 1 hour drive. The largest town along this stretch is St. Paul, with 163 residents. Other towns have only a post office and a few houses clustered along the highway. No hotels are found within an hour’s drive of Red Star. The home of a typical family in this area is remote by most U.S. standards. For example, one family in the area lives on Cave Mountain, 5 miles off the county road and up a mountainous gravel road that requires a four-wheel-drive to safely navigate the roots, rocks, bumps, and mud puddles. The home was built by the owners with the help of friends and is set deep in the woods, far from the public electrical grid. Consequently, the house is run by solar power and heated with wood. One of the current teachers at a local school who was born in the area described how she grew up in the 1980s with no running water, no electricity, and no telephone.
St. Paul has a gas station that sells a few groceries, but most people go to Fayetteville or Harrison for groceries, both about an hour away. Harrison is a little closer, but it is down the steep side of the mountain, which is unpredictable in the winter. People in the area are delighted that within the last year, a monthly grocery delivery to Headwaters School has been arranged. Everything is ordered online, and bulk items are shared and split among interested parties.
Employment in this area is challenging. Newton County, where Red Star is located, has no industry, very little farming, and only a few service jobs. Most people are self-employed or commute to Fayetteville or Harrison for work.
People in the area articulated that this area has always been sort of the backwaters of America. The original settlers came here to live in the mountains away from everything going on in the rest of the country. People have traditionally had an independent mind in regard to the government and the government’s involvement in their lives. The newer transplant people share these values with the generational families of the area.
People described a certain amount of fortitude that is necessary to stick it out in this rugged, rural area. In the 1970s, a 400-acre property on Cave Mountain was subdivided into 10- and 20-acre pieces. Every lot sold, mostly to back-to-the-landers, people who were looking for a simpler, land-based lifestyle in rural areas. After 5 or 6 years, nobody lived there. The remoteness, lack of jobs, summer heat, insects, and hard work were too much. The people who have stayed in the area “have the ability to figure something out, to come up with a plan, and to keep plugging away at it” (Local Resident, personal communication, September 8, 2007). A depth of commitment, perseverance, hard work, and creativity are needed by the people who choose to stay long-term.
Over half of the people with whom I spoke during my time in the Red Star area talked about the racism in the area. One woman explained that the Ku Klux Klan is active in hazing and chasing people out of town in the Harrison area. Racism was cited by some as a reason for homeschooling. They do not want their children to be exposed to what they perceive as both individual and institutional racism in the public schools.
Red Star is too small to have a public school. Two public schools serve the area, one in St. Paul and the other in Jasper. Jasper School is the larger of the two, with 248 students. It is located in a different county, and families outside of the county have to get permission to have their children attend the school. It is 33 miles from Red Star, and 1 hour and 9 minutes of driving time by car. It takes longer by school bus. St. Paul is only 17 miles away, a 1/2 hour drive, but the K-12 school only has 38 students. Families in the area often choose to homeschool because of the distance to school and the bus ride involved. A typical bussing scenario sounded like this: The children would ride the bus 1 hour and 45 minutes each way to school. The parents would drive them 5 miles to their mailbox, where a minibus would take them down the road to the main highway to meet another bus to take them to the town of Jasper. The end of the mountain that leads to Jasper is very steep and is treacherous or impassable in the winter, which would complicate the trip to school.
Viroqua, Wisconsin
In comparison with the other two rural locations, Viroqua is a bustling metropolis with its two stop lights, three-block downtown area, and population of 4,394. It is the county seat of Vernon County, Wisconsin which has a hospital, a Wal-Mart, and a McDonalds. La Crosse is the nearest large town, 45 minutes away, and has an airport, Amtrak station, and shopping malls. Madison, the state capital, is the nearest metropolitan area, and it lies 2 hours to the southeast. The Viroqua area is a rural area that is representative of the rural rebound previously described by Johnson (1999).
Vernon County is located in an area of southwest Wisconsin that is known as the Driftless Area. It is contiguous with areas of southeast Minnesota and northeast Iowa that are one of the only parts of North America that were consistently missed by glaciers during all of the ice ages. The area is without glacial drift or driftless. This created a unique geography of bluffs, coulees, and small winding streams, which has made the area perfectly suited to small, family farms and less suited to industrial-scale agriculture. In recent years, it has become one of the most successful organic farming regions in the country. It is an area known for the high quality of food available from local sources. Within a 20-mile radius of Viroqua, local producers offer: a wide variety of fruits and vegetables; meat products such as chicken, pork, beef, lamb, and buffalo; maple syrup and honey; sourdough bread; locally roasted coffee; sauerkraut and kim chi; cow, goat, and sheep milk and cheeses; wine; and corn and soybeans. People pride themselves on shopping and eating locally.
Vernon County is home to the largest Amish population in Wisconsin. It is a common sight to see a horse and buggy parked at the local hardware or grocery store or to see children in traditional Amish dress walking with tin lunch buckets in hand along a country road to the neighborhood one-room school. Vernon County’s Caucasian group is made up of several distinct groups, in addition to the Amish, which retain strong ethnic identities in some communities, including Norwegian, Czech, Italian, and German.
This pastoral setting is not without its difficulties. Local economic conditions are challenging. Vernon County is the third poorest county in Wisconsin, with 22.8% of children living in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Unemployment is higher than the state average, and the county is one of the lowest in the state for household income, 65th out of 72 counties. Ten percent of the population commutes to larger communities such as La Crosse for employment. Only 2.8% of the population is involved in farming (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), with dairy the primary agribusiness. The largest employers in Viroqua are the hospital, the school district, Wal-Mart, and the senior center.
Two environmental issues have been extremely controversial in the area in the past year. One involved a proposal to locate a large-scale hog confinement operation in the county. At present, the county does not have a county-wide zoning policy or animal siting ordinance, and its manure management ordinance has not been revised for many years. Proponents cite the economic benefits of such an operation. Opponents raise environmental concerns about the impact of that many animals, particularly the manure, on the local environment, especially the ground water. The other controversial issue involves a proposed take-over/buy-out of four local farms by Dairyland Power as ash disposal sites for its coal-fired power plant. County residents have been united in opposition to the power company.
Although Viroqua is small, it is an educational hub for the area. Educational options include: Viroqua Public School (K-12), Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School (K-8), English Lutheran (K-8), Cornerstone Christian Academy (K-12), Better Futures High School (an alternative public high school), Laurel Charter High School, Youth Initiative High School, and a satellite campus of Western Technical College. The educational diversity of the community has drawn people to relocate to the area (Hundt, 2004). In the last 25 years, these newcomers have brought energy and enthusiasm for initiating a wide variety of creative endeavors in the arts, agriculture, business, and education. The presence of the newcomers has also created a tension with generational families in the area, as exemplified by an editorial in the local newspaper entitled, “Townies versus Ridgies,” in which the editor, from a generational family, outlined points of tension and the strengths that each group brings to the area and encouraged an attitude of understanding and collaboration.
Rural Education
Agrarian philosopher, Wendell Berry, has emerged as a visionary of our time (Prakash, 1993; Theobald & Snauwaert, 1993). The Christian Science Monitor called him a “prophetic voice of our day” (Berry, 2004, book jacket) and placed his writing in the company of Thoreau and Emerson. Hannah Coulter is a primary character in Berry’s novel of the same name. Toward the end of Hannah’s life, she reflects to her husband on the migration of their children from rural Kentucky to urban areas. “I just wanted them to have a better chance than I had,” she said to Nathan (Berry, 2004, p. 112). In response, he challenged her to consider what was so bad about the chance she had had. This set her on a long, reflective path that led to thoughts and questions such as, “The way of education leads away from home. The big idea of education, from the first to last is the idea of a better place . . . a better place somewhere else. In order to move up, you have to move on” (pp. 112, 113). Hannah asks the reader to ponder: Why do rural people raise their children with the assumption that they will seek a better life somewhere else? Gruchow (1995) gave voice to a similar sentiment: “Rural children have been educated to believe that opportunity of every kind lies elsewhere and that the last half century’s rural experience of failure and decline has been largely due to the incompetence, or irrelevance, of rural people” (p. 91).
Rural education is often viewed from two divergent perspectives. One is the romantic notion of the idyllic rural community where education is connected to the land, small-scale, and in touch with community values. The other is that of a sub-standard education, a limiting and narrow curriculum, deteriorating buildings, and old-fashioned teachers. Both perspectives represent some elements of the truth, and yet neither reflects the full reality of rural education (White & Merrifield, 1990).
The most recent statistics on rural education are reported in Why Rural Matters 2007 (Johnson & Strange, 2007), a publication of the Rural School and Community Trust. The report shows that rural enrollment is up overall by 15%, while overall public school enrollment is up only 1% (Johnson & Strange). Forty percent of school districts are in areas defined as rural by the U.S. Census Bureau. The percentage of rural districts found in each state varies widely. Montana has the greatest number of rural districts, with 81% of districts in Montana identified as rural. Massachusetts has the fewest rural districts, with only 13% of its districts classified as rural.
The most surprising numbers in the 2007 report are the increases in rural minority students—55% overall in rural areas, with some areas showing increases of over 100% (Johnson & Strange, 2007). States where this increase is greatest are the states that previously had very small minority enrollment, such as New Hampshire, Iowa, Missouri, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Kansas, and Utah. The report also shows that nearly half of English language learners are in rural communities. In addition, a rural child’s chances of living in poverty are greater than for an urban child. Authors pointed out that the 2007 report “serves as a reminder that many rural schools continue to face a number of challenges, including high poverty levels, low student achievement, low teacher salaries, and uneven distribution of Title I funds” (Johnson & Strange, 2007, para. 2).
Five years of research conducted by Miller (1993) under the auspices of the Rural Education Program at the Northwest Regional Laboratory focused on the role of schools in community development. Special problems in rural areas were identified by Miller: declining population; a history of dependency on centralized, urban, and multinational corporate resource industries; out-migration of the young; lower educational attainment and higher drop-out rates than urban areas; an aging rural population, and changes in farming. In addition, others have noted these issues for rural schools: recruitment and retention of teachers and administrators due to isolation and lower salaries (Beeson & Strange, 2000); long bus rides both to and from school for many children (Beeson & Strange); smaller numbers of students and a generally lower tax base mean less money for schools (Herzog & Pittman, 1995); and the rural “brain drain,” with the more educated moving to cities, leaving areas often without professionals needed to provide basic services (Herzog & Pittman). In addition, consolidation has been the most frequently implemented educational reform in rural areas in the last century.
It is important to clearly explain consolidation because it has been, and continues to be, a central feature of the rural schooling landscape (Bard, Gardener, & Wieland, 2005). I offer here a brief overview as part of the picture of rural areas and rural schools. Rural schools have a long history of consolidation, beginning in the mid-1800s and continuing today. Consolidation is defined as “combining two or more previously independent schools or school districts into one new and larger school system” (Bard et al., p. 5). The intensity surrounding consolidation is expressed in this statement of a recent policy brief of the Rural School and Community Trust (2006): “There is a battle going on out there, and it’s not pretty and certainly not rational. Across the country, states are pushing to close their small, rural schools with the mistaken hope of saving money” (p. 5). The National Center for Education Statistics reported that in 1937, the U.S. had 25.5 million students in 117,108 school districts with about 250,000 schools (Jimerson, 2006). By 2000, public school enrollment had risen to 46.9 million students, but the number of districts had been reduced to 14,928 and the number of schools to 92,012 (Jimerson).
A number of authors view consolidation as an extension of the industrial model of education, the belief that bigger is better, and the belief that all schools need to look alike (Bard et al., 2005). Cubberly, a school reformer of the early 1900s, was typical of the time when he expressed this belief about rural schools: “The rural school is today in a state of arrested development, burdened by educational traditions, lacking in effective supervision, controlled largely by rural people who too often, do not realize either their own needs or the possibilities of rural education” (Cubberly, 1914, cited in Bard, et al., p. 4). Reasons most often cited for consolidation include (Bard et al., 2005): cost-effectiveness and efficiency, economy of scale, a desire to centralize control rather than leave decisions to local communities and local politics, a greater number of curriculum offerings, and greater student achievement. Consolidation proposals have often pitted rural community members against businesses and politicians. Some companies such as International Harvester, a leading manufacturer of school buses, have lobbied heavily for consolidation. In the case of International Harvester, consolidation increases the need for school buses because of transporting more students for longer distances. In many cases, consolidation has been forced on rural communities through the threat of withholding funds or with the promise of new facilities or increased funding.
Communities involved in potential school consolidations have expressed a number of concerns. These include: an increase in busing times for students, students’ difficulty in participating in extracurricular activities because of travel distances and busing, loss of community identity, and the loss of the school as the center of community activities and economic life (the school is often the largest employer in small towns) (Jimerson, 2006). Jimerson, with the Rural School and Community Trust, summed this up: “Small villages that lose their schools lose more than a building—they lose their collective cultural and civic center” (p. 5).
Declining enrollments in some rural areas continue the pressure for consolidation, in spite of a growing body of research that indicates the benefits of small schools and that questions the effectiveness of consolidation as a cost-saving measure or a reform strategy (Rural School and Community Trust, 2006). States continue to reduce the number of rural districts in order to meet budget challenges. In the 14 years prior to 2005, Iowa reduced districts from 438 to 377. West Virginia has closed over 300 schools since 1990. The Rural School and Community Trust has challenged the assumption that consolidation saves money:
School consolidation produces less fiscal benefit and greater cost than it promises. While some costs, particularly administrative costs, may decline in the short run, they are replaced by other expenditures, especially transportation and specialized staff. The loss of a school also negatively affects the tax base and fiscal capacity of the district. These costs are often borne disproportionately by low-income and minority communities. (p. 3)
La Farge, Wisconsin, a small town of 795, is typical of schools trying to keep their doors open and avoid consolidation. The school has been the community center since the town began. People feel strongly about keeping their local school. In the fall of 2007, the school was unexpectedly short about 20 students in their enrollment figures for a balanced budget. This represented about $160,000 in revenue for the budget, a huge amount in this small K-12 school. The school literally would have had to close its doors if it hadn’t found some students to enroll. School administrators literally went out and “beat the bushes” to find students to increase their enrollment. They managed to come up with enough students to stay open this year, but the future is uncertain.
The Rural School and Community Trust (2006) raised a number of questions related to consolidation that are critical to consider in a democratic society: “Which communities are allowed to govern their schools? Which communities are allowed to have a school? Do citizens have the right to participate in these decisions? Why are some rural children denied the right to a quality education close to home?” (p. 2).
Highlander Education Center offered workshops in 1990 for anyone concerned about rural education to discuss concerns and strategies for change. From different workshops attended by people from all across the country, the primary theme that emerged was “a desire for increased local democratic control of education systems which provides opportunity for flexible and unique solutions to be developed by communities” (White & Merrifield, 1990, p. 6). Also identified was a common understanding that education is for children, families, and communities, that it is not about success on tests, but about the quality of daily life, and that what is good for corporate profits and global competitiveness is not necessarily good for children and communities. The perspectives of two parents involved in educational advocacy work in the Southeast were representative of the visions shared during many of Highlander’s workshops. L. Martin of West Virginia (White & Merrifield, 1990) shared:
In my vision, I’d want to think about education in another way, other than just in those buildings, so that it serves us and our families, and our communities all the time and is not limited to when we go into that particular space. And I like to think of it as a process from the beginning of life to the very end. (p. 14)
J. Martin (White & Merrifield, 1990) of Kentucky expressed this vision:
We have a different way of thinking about what education is. It’s not just something that you learn within the school that somebody else tells you is important, but it’s how you lead your life, what’s happening in your community, justice issues, what’s going on around you. It’s not just learning to do certain things and getting graded on it. (p. 36)
Grassroots education efforts are one response to this desire for a different form of education and the need to address a wide variety of rural issues. Grassroots initiatives serve both children and families of all ages and in all stages of their lives. Learning often takes place in a variety of contexts outside of a school building. Learning in grassroots initiatives is not just about skills, but also about community relationships and local issues. Grassroots education initiatives start with the premise that community needs and educational needs are interwoven, and education that builds the value of rural life and develops rural assets has the most to offer individuals and communities.
Influences on the Development of Visionary Grassroots Education
As discussed in chapter 1, a variety of grassroots education initiatives have been described by a number of authors. I offered the term visionary grassroots education initiatives to encompass these projects. This research contributes to the academic understanding of these initiatives. As described also in chapter 1, grassroots education has been influenced by and includes features from People’s Education, as well as other pedagogical and philosophical approaches, including popular education, folk education, indigenous education, public homeplace learning, experiential education, alternative education, and postmodern thought. Each of these is explained more fully below.
Popular Education
Popular education, or libratory education, was catalyzed by the vision and work of Brazilian educator, Paolo Freire. Freire believed passionately that learning is deeply connected to people’s community experience (Freire, 2000). Conscientization is central to Freire’s pedagogy. From the Portuguese conscientizaco, Freire (2000) meant “learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (p. 74). He sought to create a pedagogy that assisted individuals and communities in taking charge of their own education and confronting the oppressive structures of their lives. Adult literacy programs were designed from the culture, the language, and the hopes of those being educated (Freire, 2000). Macedo (Intro. to Freire, 1998) proposed that Freire’s pedagogy is no longer just appropriate in the context of third world oppression, but also in the United States where public education is losing its communal and democratic spirit.
Freire’s work continues to inspire people and projects at the grassroots. Highlander Research and Education Center near New Market, Tennessee, discussed later in this chapter, is an example of an organization that draws from Freire’s approach. Ten authors who have who have been involved with Freirian-based projects, particularly in indigenous and peasant communities, have raised questions about the appropriateness and effectiveness of the pedagogy (Bowers & Apfel-Marglin, 2005). These authors acknowledged that Freire has brought a valuable perspective to grassroots work, which includes the importance of dialogue, the examination of realities in students’ daily lives, and critical reflection as a valuable educational tool.
At the same time, these authors have voiced concerns that Freire’s approach is based heavily on Western ways of thinking and assumptions that are in sharp contrast to indigenous or peasant approaches to understanding the world (Bowers & Apffel-Marglin, 2005). They have experienced that the presence of these Western assumptions actually serves to perpetuate the system that Freire was trying to change. Some authors (Bowers & Apffel-Marglin, 2005; Estevea et al., 2005) have asserted that the process of working with people’s awareness to create conscience and conscientization is, in reality, colonization. Concerns expressed by various authors include: the emphasis on an individual perspective and individualism (Vasquez, 2005); an implicit hierarchy that gives teachers the task of raising the consciousness of the students (Benjarano, 2005); the assumption that “cultures should adopt a literacy-based form of critical intelligence” (Bowers & Apffel-Marglin, p. xiii); the belief that change is progressive and linear (Bowers & Apffel-Marglin); the use of critical reflection as the primary or only source of knowledge that undermines other knowledge systems, such as intergenerational knowledge and the practical and spiritual wisdom of cultural groups (Bowers; Siddhartha, 2005); the assumption that “education is a universal good” (Esteva et al., p. 18); and a narrow understanding of how knowledge is acquired, along with a lack of recognition of the differences between oral and literacy-based cultures (Rasmussen, 2005). These authors have encouraged educators and advocates to first of all ground their efforts in an understanding of local cultural traditions.
Folk Education
Folk education emerged in Denmark in the 1800s and was a decentralized, grassroots movement that gave farmers a means for personal and social transformation through education. Inspired by Nikolaj Grundtvig, the movement is credited with supporting Denmark’s successful transition to democracy (Borish, 1991). Grundtvig’s concern was that schools should bring dignity to rural people, instill a life-long love of learning and a pride in culture, assist people in understanding their own identity, and strengthen and empower communities. Grundtvig believed that this kind of schooling would build the foundation of skills and understandings for creating a peaceable and just society (Lawson, 1991).
Public Homeplace Learning
The term, public homeplace learning, refers to community-based, informal women’s groups that support a variety of community activities and projects. Dialogue and action that is linked to dialogue are central. Homeplace learning is based on the work of Belenky et al., (1997) and “women’s ways of knowing” (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997). They described a public homeplace as a place of learning and community that reduces the distinction between public and private life. The core belief is that individual growth happens most fully in this communal context. Martin (1992), with her concept of the schoolhome, held a similar belief and pedagogical approach in the context of education for children.
Indigenous Education
Cajete (1994), a Tewa educator, has seen indigenous learning as an experiential process grounded in everyday life experiences. Cajete (1999) defined indigenous as “belonging to a locality or originating in a place in reference to races or species that have not been introduced from elsewhere” (p. 189). The “school” is found in the context of community and in nature. Cajete noted parallels between Freire’s approach to education and indigenous education: the central place of dialogue; the collaborative role of students and teachers; and the location of knowledge with the people, rather than the experts. In addition, both Freire (2000) and Cajete believed that the best learning takes place in the natural, cultural, and historical context of the learners. The central lesson that can be learned from education in indigenous societies is that learning and teaching are organically woven into the fabric of daily life and are designed to bring children into thoughtful and responsible relationship with people and the natural world (Dugan, 1993).
Experiential Education
Experiential educators actively engage learners in real-life, hands-on experiences (Martin, 2000). Students are viewed as the creators of their own knowledge. Experiential education is connected with the work of 20th century progressive educator, John Dewey (1938), and with constructivist learning theory. Recent research on brain-based learning strongly supports learning experiences based in personal experience (e.g., Nummela-Caine, Caine, McClintic, & Klimek, 2004; Diamond & Hopson, 1998; Engineer, Percaccio, & Kilgard, 2004; Forester & Reinhard, 2000). The research of these authors is discussed later in the literature review. Experiential learning is central to many alternative philosophies of education and can be found in all disciplines and with all ages of learners. Service learning, outdoor education, and adventure learning are common forms of experiential education.
Alternative Education
In the 1970s, disillusionment with the role of institutions to truly serve the needs of the people was widespread, and the public began to question the ideology and institution of schooling (Miller, 2002). A growing number of authors were criticizing all aspects of education, from the unresponsiveness of bureaucracies to the suffering of the dispossessed in the system, to violence in city schools, and to disappointing academic achievement. Reformers from divergent perspectives began to voice consideration of a variety of alternative structures such as school choice, vouchers, and even the elimination of compulsory education or the deschooling of society (Illich, 1971; Miller; Tyack, 1974). The self-help movement emerged out of the unrest and dissatisfaction of this time. In education, this took the form of increased parental activism, a large increase in private school enrollments, and steady growth of both alternative schools and homeschooling. The message was clear that many people no longer accepted the concept of a “one size fits all” education.
Holistic education is a philosophical and pedagogical approach that has been frequently engaged in alternative education (Martin, 2000). In this approach, educators recognize that learning is best approached from multiple and interconnected ways of knowing, including physical, cognitive, emotional, and spiritual.
Postmodern Perspectives
Postmodern perspectives also influence people who choose to become involved in grassroots education. Many social theorists have described the present age as postmodern (Griffin, 1992; Orr, 1992; Toll, 2001). Postmodernism as a broad philosophical movement is a response to modernist ideas and beliefs and the resulting institutions and technologies that emerged particularly in the early 19th century (Miller, 2000). In the modernist view, science is seen as the source of all genuine knowledge, and the universe as a mechanical system (Zohar & Marshall, 1994). Perceiving the world as a machine offered the possibility that the universe could be completely understood and ultimately predicted and controlled. Science could be relied upon to provide answers to all problems. The modern worldview culminated in the industrial and technological revolution. The mechanistic thinking of modernism has led to enormous changes and disruptions in biological, social, and cultural patterns (Orr, 1994). Postmodernism strives to address these issues.
Postmodern thought has influenced many fields of study. It can be difficult to define and is the subject of much debate in fields such as education and anthropology (Bushman & Brosio, 2006). An in-depth examination of the many perspectives on postmodern thought is beyond the scope of this paper. I present here a broad definition and a brief description of the application of postmodern thought to education and to grassroots initiatives. Postmodernism is characterized by: an understanding of knowledge that is socially constructed and based in each unique, local setting; a belief that the construction of knowledge reflects the power and social relationships of society; a belief that the purpose of socially constructed knowledge is to improve society; a valuing of differences; a distrust of metanarratives and dualistic thinking; and a questioning of traditional ideas of scientific progress (Powers, 2002; Toll, 2001).
An example of the debates around the topic of postmodernism are reflected in the work of Reason and Bradbury (2001) and Griffin (1992), who offered different descriptions or definitions of a postmodern worldview. Reason and Bradbury, while acknowledging the value of certain aspects of postmodern thought, raised concerns that postmodern perspectives have the potential to exacerbate modern “rootlessness and meaninglessness” (p. 6). They proposed a worldview that is more constructivist and based on a “metaphor of participation” (p. 6) and active engagement with the world.
Toll (2001) examined education from a postmodern perspective and proposed that failures of educational reform have been a result of the limits of a modernist approach to education. Central to a postmodern approach to education are, in her opinion: diversity in school practices, values, and beliefs; paying attention to power dynamics; building on local and contextual knowledge; and a recognition that change is a constant part of all experiences, and educational contexts and experiences must be designed to adapt and change in response to circumstances and needs.
For Griffin, also, postmodernism does not go far enough in how it approaches the potential for societal change. Griffin (1992) described a school of thought that he termed revisionary postmodernism. This includes thinkers such as Berry (1990), Bowers (2000), Esteva and Prakash (1998), Gandhi (1953/1980), Illich (1971), Leopold (1966), Mumford (1946), Orr (1994), Schumacher (1973), and others who have urged a reexamination and a re-formation of schooling that reflects a systemic, life-supporting, and sustainable view of life, and a redefinition of what it means to flourish culturally, of what makes a good life. They offered a vision of life beyond the values and infrastructure of modern, industrial society to a society where ecological sustainability and social justice are truly central. Grassroots education initiatives emerging from this perspective reflect a hope shared by Freire (2000), Gandhi (1953/1980), Grundtvig (Lawson, 1991), and Steiner (1985) for making a transition from an unsustainable industrial society toward sustainable postmodern societies.
Postmodern grassroots movements empower local people and communities and encourage independence from government control and influence. Grassroots efforts challenge what Esteva and Prakash (1998) have called The Global Project, defined as “efforts to standardize human activity for the convenience of financial and economic elites of the world” (p. 379). Those who are engaged in grassroots efforts challenge this by not participating in modern power structures and by creating local alternatives to corporate or global products and services. Esteva and Prakash have identified an “unfolding postmodern epic at the grassroots” (p. 1), and they have examined grassroots efforts in India and Mexico. Both Berry (1990) and Gandhi (1953/1980) encouraged local self-reliance in the economic sphere.
Esteva and Prakash (1998) and Salzman (2004) offered definitions of grassroots initiatives that were presented in chapter 1. They described an intentional choice in the design of grassroots initiatives to work outside of the sphere of government and corporate influence. Hutchinson (2004) also suggested that education may need to separate itself from its “current sponsoring agencies” (p. 43) and be taken up by grassroots efforts in order to reclaim democracy for learning and teaching.
Features of Visionary Grassroots Education
Visionary grassroots education emerges in the inspiration of the movements and pedagogical approaches just described and includes a core set of beliefs and qualities. Individual initiatives reflect these qualities to various degrees. Grassroots educators begin with an understanding of what it means to be human, have a commitment to create a more just society, strive to respond to the needs or struggles of the common people, hold that knowledge is found in the common people, and value epistemological diversity. In addition, grassroots education includes a number of other features. The following list is gleaned and integrated from numerous authors, including Freire (2000), Hutchinson (2004), Marshall (1997), Miller (2000), Pimpare, (2003), Prakash and Esteva (1998), and Streck (2003).
• Democratic—Participatory democracy is emphasized, including direct community involvement in planning and decision-making (Freire; Hutchinson; Miller; Streck).
• Public—Education is created and initiated at the local level and available to all (Freire; Hutchinson; Prakash & Esteva; Pimpare; Streck).
• Relational—Relationships and the building of community are central (Hutchinson; Marshall; Miller; Prakash & Esteva).
• Place-based—Learning takes place in a variety of contexts in the natural environment and community (Miller; Pimpare; Prakash & Esteva; Streck).
• Dialogical—The oral tradition and dialogue are of primary importance in learning and community process (Freire; Prakash & Esteva; Streck).
• Cultural—Development and expression of culture are central in learning (Freire; Miller; Prakash & Esteva; Streck).
• Dynamic—Educational programs are responsive to diverse community needs, changing and evolving as individual and community needs change. They are open to experimentation and innovation, and they are flexible, while adapting to specific places and people (Marshall; Miller; Streck).
• Holistic—Learning involves head, heart, and hands (Marshall; Miller).
• Interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary—Curriculum and learning integrate and transcend academic categories (Miller; Pimpare; Streck).
• Life-long and intergenerational—Education is not confined to certain ages or times of life (Miller; Pimpare; Prakash & Esteva).
• Experiential—Learning cannot be successfully separated from ordinary life, work, and leisure. The acquisition of practical skills is encouraged (Freire; Miller; Pimpare; Prakash & Esteva).
• Collaborative—Collaborations among individuals and among organizations form the learning infrastructure (Marshall; Miller).
Three of the features listed above are particularly central in all visionary grassroots education and are features in which many of the others are incorporated. The first is the public and democratic nature of grassroots education, the second is the connection of education to local place and community, and the third is the relational nature of grassroots education. A deeper understanding of what grassroots education is and why it is of value at this time in history emerges from an elaboration of these defining features.
Public
Public education has been considered the foundation of a democratic, civic culture (Goodlad, 2004). Scholars have defined public as being connected to or working on behalf of the people or community, rather than private interests (Arons, 1997; Gardner, 1966; Hutchinson, 2004). Hutchinson maintained that a strong public in education includes the following: a) input from all interested and involved in the purpose and goals of education; b) equity in resources; c) tuition-free education; and d) inclusive to all. Gardner (1966), Milito (1995), and Porter (1995) described a truly public education as one in which every child has a right to a quality education as judged by the parents. Steiner (1985) described education as a cultural activity that should emerge from the people, in a bottom-up way, at the grassroots level. In a truly democratic society, people have the freedom to educate their children according to their conscience and values (Milito; Porter). By these standards, the current system of education in the United States falls far short of being truly public education. American education could more accurately be called government or national education. Hutchinson has asserted that schools are continuing to grow in their non-public character. This loss of public voice and control in education is seen in the enforcement of high stakes testing, the push for a nationally standardized curriculum, increased decision-making by non-educators, and an increase in corporate influence and involvement (Emery, 2002; Emery & Ohanian, 2004; Hutchinson, 2004).
Another example of the loss of public voice and participation in education is the involvement of the Business Round Table (BRT) in education (Emery, 2002). The BRT has coordinated an effort to bring together corporate business leaders, politicians, and private and non-profit organizations to influence education. The purpose of the BRT has been to direct the public school system to reflect the structure of the new global economy and workplace and to exert control over American political and cultural life. The BRT has worked to eliminate local community participation in developing educational policy and to consolidate educational policy development at the state and national level. Emery (2002), who did extensive research on the involvement of the BRT in education, described the BRT involvement as efforts to create a “corporate hegemony over American political and cultural life” (p. 7). Both Goals 2000 (R. Miller, 1995) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (Meier & Wood, 2004) also reflect this strategy.
Various writers have described American education as losing its public nature and being colonized by corporate and political interests, and more recently military interests (Berlak, 1995; Emery, 2002; Saltman & Gabbard, 2003). Colonialism, according to Said (1994), is defined as “the establishment and maintenance of settlements on someone else’s territory” (p. 7). This can include land, resources, and wealth, but also ideas and various forms of knowledge. With the national agenda that was begun with Goals 2000 and continued with NCLB, a monopoly on ideas and knowledge has formed. Berlak described this colonization as a form of “deliberate, coercive cultural control managed from the top by testing” (p. 139). Toll (2001) asserted that those with power are directing school change in service to their own political agendas. This perspective is elaborated on in the discussion of democracy later in this chapter.
In recent years, the growth of community learning centers, learning cooperatives, homeschooling, private schools, and various community-based education initiatives has been a response to this educational control (Miller, 2000). Hutchinson (2004) described two possibilities to return the public to education: either the institutions must change to re-engage the true sense of public, or “public education must be seen as divorced from its current sponsoring agencies and offered anew through a self-determined form of people’s voice, work, and responsibility” (p. 43). Some communities are beginning to explore this second possibility, seeking to create public educational opportunities that are not government controlled and emerge from the local context to serve a wide variety of community needs. Berlak (1995) described an era of decolonization and cultural reformation currently underway as people and communities strive to reclaim or create their cultural identities. Grassroots education can be seen as part of a cultural process of decolonization and cultural renewal that returns the public to public education.
Place-based
A second defining quality of grassroots education is its place-based nature. Every place has a human history, a geological history, and is part of a particular ecosystem with unique flora, fauna, and environmental issues. Every place has a set of unique human influences of culture, economy, and politics. Place-based or place-conscious education is an approach to education in which educators intentionally build connections between students, communities, and the physical environment, making the word local in local public school take on new meaning (Bauch, 2001; Orr, 1992; Theobald, 1997). Most schools operate as isolated entities within a community and are indistinguishable from one locale to another. Local culture, history, and the natural environment are simply a backdrop for school location. A pedagogy of place challenges the idea that “education is a passive, indoor activity” (Orr, 1992, p. 87) and instead involves integrating the school into the day-to-day activities of the community, engaging the curriculum with historical sites, local oral history, geographical formations, wilderness and wildlife experiences, local agriculture, forestry, and numerous community activities and events. Students are encouraged to be members of society now, rather than waiting until they become adults and enter the workforce. In contrast, the current system of education “has become a great homogenizing force, undermining local knowledge, indigenous languages, and the self-confidence of placed people” (Orr, 1994, p. 129). The core of place-conscious education is learning to live well now, where one is.
Place-based education includes the following key elements (Nachtigal & Haas, 2000): cultural—local histories, personal stories, and folk culture; ecological—knowledge and understanding of and care for the physical environment; civic—discussion and engagement in issues of local concern; economic—involvement in local economic activities and development of an understanding of the value of small-scale, local endeavors; and entrepreneurial—involvement in initiating and running small-scale businesses that serve a need in the community.
Smith (1998) proposed that in order to nurture a sense of place in education, guidance can come from other societies who have a history of creating sustainable communities in which people feel an intimate connection and long-term commitment to their land and to each other. Traditional cultures share a number of essential understandings about the nature of the world and people’s role in it. Place-conscious educators value and build on these qualities of traditional cultures: a sense of identity and rootedness in the soil of a place, connections with family and community, and a sense of essential vocation (Oliver et al., 2002). Traditional approaches to learning offer a beneficial perspective because learning has not been separated from daily life, the community, or the environment.
A large body of research strongly supports the positive effects of place-based education. Across the research, one can see a clear indication that when students are involved in place-based learning experiences, they engage more fully and enthusiastically in learning, they do better academically, they take greater pride in and ownership for their learning, and behavior issues diminish (State Education and Environment Roundtable, 1998). The State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER), founded in 1995, has conducted and gathered extensive research that documents the academic and behavioral benefits of using the environment as a context for learning (SEER, 1998, 2000, 2005). Research projects have been conducted at school sites in California (American Institute of Research, 2005; Lieberman & Hoody, 1998), Florida (Abrams, 1999; Athman & Monroe, 2004), Louisiana (Emekauwa, 2004), Maryland (Von Secker, 2004), South Carolina (Falco, 2004), and Washington (Bartosh, 2004).
In addition, the National Environmental Education Training Foundation (2000) conducted research in Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin involving thousands of students. One study, Closing the Achievement Gap (Lieberman & Hoody, 1998), exemplified the extensive nature of the research and the type of results. Researchers examined 40 schools and involved more than 400 students and 250 teachers and administrators. The primary results included higher scores on standardized measures of achievement in targeted subject areas, reduced discipline and classroom management problems, increased student engagement and enthusiasm for learning, and greater pride and ownership in students’ accomplishments. SEER has developed a model that is based on their research and the contributions of the twelve state departments that are part of SEER. The model (EIC—using the Environment as an Integrating Context for learning) incorporates the “best practices” that were observed in the research. The six recognized best practices include: a) interdisciplinary instruction, b) collaboration among teachers, students, and community members, c) community-based studies that offer experiential learning relevant to students’ lives, d) learner-centered approaches that build on students’ interests, knowledge, experiences, and needs, e) both collaborative and independent experiences, and f) instruction, learning, and service projects in the local community. In addition, the All of a Place Institute for Connecting Schools, Youth, and Communities also found that place-based learning is particularly beneficial in rural areas (Chin, 2001).
A number of philosophers and educators (Bauch, 2001; Bell, 2005; Berry, 1990; Glassman & Crowson, 2001; Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Nachtigal & Haas, 2000; Orr, 1992; Theobald, 1997) have articulated benefits of place-based education that are very similar to the benefits identified by researchers in the previous paragraphs.
• Place-based education combines intellect and experience.
• It brings subject matter alive.
• It enhances motivation and engagement.
• It encourages interdisciplinary thinking.
• It builds lasting connections between students and their communities.
• It values and builds on community diversity.
Social researchers, philosophers, educators, and others are advocating for a more local and place-based education. Goodlad (2004) observed that the more education has moved away from local control and debate, the more it is considered to be failing its public role. As a result, an increase in privatization of various forms has resulted. Schools prior to the industrial revolution were extensions of the local community. Reformers in the late 1800s saw this localness as a detriment to effective schooling (Tyack, 1974). They believed that community control allowed for heavy influence from local politics that often encouraged inadequate facilities and low pay, as well as ineffective supervision. The belief was that a technological, urban society demanded a professionalizing of schooling that was only possible by removing control from the local level.
Educators who propose the revival of a form of localized education must address certain cautions. These cautions include: a) Beadie (2001) emphasized that those who are involved in localized education must have a heightened awareness of the networks of power and affiliation that come into play at the local level and are likely to be a factor in educational issues; b) leaders in educational change, Fullan and Miles (1992), have agreed that all large-scale change must begin locally; yet, they cautioned that all control should not be turned over to the individual school, assuming that only the local level is of importance; c) Csikszentmilyi (1993) asserted that decentralized decision-making does not work unless those involved know what they want and are able to seek that which is good for the community; d) Freire (1995) cautioned that it is a mistake to become so focused on the local level that a vision of the whole becomes obscured; e) Emery (2002) and Esteva and Prakash (1998) identified a risk for grassroots and alternative efforts to be co-opted by existing systems of corporate and political power; f) government at any level holds the power to create and maintain cultural hegemony, if it chooses, and it has the power to “indoctrinate rather than educate” (Theobald & Snauwaert, 1993, p. 42); g) generations of children have suffered discrimination in the hands of local control. In order to avoid the historical challenges of local education, people who are involved in grassroots initiatives must be sensitive to and address issues of equity and inclusivity and strive to reflect diversity that is representative of the local area.
The question is sometimes raised whether place-based education might have a tendency to become narrow and insular. As Freire cautioned above, this can be a risk when focusing on the local level. Theobald and Nachtigal (1995) have argued that quite the opposite is true if place-based education retains a sense of the larger whole. They have suggested that “focusing on the genius of ordinary places does not result in a parochial education. Instead, it allows one to live in a deeply meaningful and humane way” (p. 136). Orr (1992) added that if local place were the exclusive focus of education, it could become narrow and parochial; however, in a strong, place-based education program, educators include the relationships between places and recognize that any local place is set within a concentric series of increasingly larger places of which it is still a part. Gandhi (1953/1980), who also emphasized the critical value of developing the local in education, eloquently described the grounding value of local education and the importance of global and multicultural understandings. He said, “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any” (p. 11).
A minimal level of government control in education is necessary to allow for limits to community autonomy in the interest of honoring justice and equality. Kozol (2005) outlined three appropriate areas for government control: the provision of the costs and means of transportation for students, information access for parents, and prohibitions against any form of entrance requirements for students that could exclude a student based on disability, behavior, or previously low levels of achievement. I add the protection of fundamental freedoms found in the U. S. Constitution, such as freedom from discrimination. Cobscook Community Learning Center, one of the research sites, is an example of community-based education that does not involve government control and is striving to uphold principles of justice and equity.
Relational
Visionary grassroots education is defined by the centrality of relationships and community. Numerous educators have advocated that relationships based in community should be the primary focus of education: Belenky et al., (1997), Cajete (1994), Darling-Hammond (1993), Eisler (2002), Martin, (1992), Mc Caleb (1994), Noddings (1995); Orr (1994); Palmer (1998), and Theobald (1997), to name a few. Cajete clearly expressed this shared value. He suggested that “education is, at its essence learning about life through participation, relationship, and community” (p. 28). Children need, from the beginning, to be part of healthy communities, investing themselves in ongoing relationships. Ideally, learning is intergenerational and interdisciplinary and takes place in a variety of contexts connected to home, community, and to the natural environment. These valuable learning contexts have been virtually ignored by education. Smith (1981), who has studied cultures around the world, observed that no other culture has separated people from their environment to the extent that American society has. Physicists Zohar and Marshall (1994) maintained that a system that “falls out of dialogue with its environment” (p. 199) ceases to function. Schools have fallen out of dialogue with their environment. They have isolated themselves from families, communities, and the natural world, and as a result, they have sabotaged their educational potential.
Rutter’s (2006) research is especially pertinent in this discussion. He examined the role of community in children’s learning and concluded that the absence of deep and enduring relationships and weak or absent social cohesion in the community were factors that placed children at risk. The presence of strong relationships and community cohesion support learning.
In addition, Israeli psychologist, Feurstein (1986), in his seminal research, also addressed the important role of community and cultural ties in learning. He emphasized that intelligence is a flexible, dynamic system that develops throughout life, and people’s connections to their native culture are critical in developing their potential. When these ties are cut or not supported, individuals’ development and intelligence suffer (Howard, 1996). Cultural knowledge and connections are central in grassroots education.
When implemented effectively, grassroots initiatives intend to bring to education the public presence, the democratic voice, a deep sense of place, and a life-giving involvement with community. Grassroots initiatives serving children, families, and communities take a variety of forms in the U.S.: community learning centers, learning cooperatives, folk schools, and some alternative schools.
Catalysts for Grassroots Education
Education, like many fields of study, often suffers from the narrow study of experts who know a great deal about one aspect of education but very little about other aspects. The reasons for grassroots education arise from multiple perspectives. Esteva and Prakash (1998) and Tye (2000) urged a systemic, macro view as a necessary part of the examination of and approach to educational change. In this section, various perspectives, or lenses through which to look, are presented in order to create a comprehensive understanding of the reasons for the emergence of grassroots education initiatives, as well as reasons to support their continued development. These lenses have been gleaned from a broad survey of the literature related to educational history, reform, and innovation. Grassroots educators working in a wide variety of grassroots education projects may be motivated by one or several of these lenses. For example, many innovative, independent schools have been formed by community members with a desire to address issues related to the purposes of education or to child development and neurological potential (Miller, 2000). Grassroots education initiatives such as community learning centers are particularly focused on responding to issues related to equity, justice, and democracy. Understanding the influences and catalyzing factors for the growing development of grassroots education initiatives at this time in history is foundational for research that is designed to build an understanding of their success and sustainability.
Grassroots education is grounded in the belief that a new vision for education cannot be created within the oppressive infrastructure of industrial education and its accompanying worldview. In summary, the various forms of grassroots education emerge from one or more of these perspectives or motivations:
1. a philosophical lens—What is education for?
2. a lens of history—understanding our current system, both how and why it was created and the efforts to reform it
3. a lens of equity, justice, and democracy
4. a lens of living systems
5. a lens of our humanity
6. a lens of cultural and societal trends
7. a lens of child development and neurological potential
8. a lens of school size
9. a lens of school facilities
Each of these topics is huge, and many books and articles have been written about each one. This section includes an overview of the issues in each perspective and highlights the key points that pertain to grassroots education.
Philosophical Lens—What is Education For?
Public schools are caught in the middle of competing interests and areas of control around the purpose of education (de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002). The government and much of mainstream society is focused on the economic function of schooling; schools provide the skills and knowledge for citizens to participate successfully in and strengthen the economy. Recent educational policies blatantly promote the interests of government, rather than the interests of children. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education (2006, March 30), speaking about recent policies of the administration, clearly stated the government’s goals for education:
Improving education is critical not only to America’s economic security, but also to our national security. Today, not one but 3000 satellites circle the earth. U.S. soldiers use the latest communications and surveillance technology to fight global war on terrorism. Advanced math skills are used to identify and undermine terrorist networks. Government and the private sector engineer new ways to protect lives and infrastructure from harm. And the efforts to spread freedom to other nations and cultures demands speakers fluent in languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Chinese, and Russian (p. 2) . . . . Critical-need foreign language skills are necessary to advance the twin goals of national security and global competitiveness. (p. 9)
She spoke clearly of an education focused on addressing national economic and security issues. The children themselves, their needs, and best interests are often absent from state and national discussions. Many educators and education advocates have questioned and challenged the government’s purpose for education and have proposed a dramatically different purpose for education, that education must begin with the child and what it means to be a human being, and that it should support the health of children, communities, and democracy (Berry, 1990; Martin, 1995; Mc Reynolds, 2006; Miller 1997; Orr, 1994). Visionary grassroots education efforts begin with variations of this purpose for education.
Historical Lens
The ability to make wise and informed choices about the future is determined to a great extent by how one understands and learns from the past. Freire (2000) proposed that understanding the historical realities of a situation contextualizes that situation, making it more subject to examination and change in a new historical period. This section includes a brief summary of the history and formative issues of American education. Our current education system in its overall form has been in existence for about 150 years. Movements for reform and curricular and program adjustments have taken place, yet the overall structure and the goals have remained much the same. Children attend school 5 days a week for 5-7 hours, 9 months of the year, in classes based on age, studying primarily reading, writing,
math, and the sciences. They attend school with the goal of acquiring the skills to get good jobs when they graduate. Why and how education is conducted has changed very little.
In the early years of U.S. history, schooling was only a small part of the total educational experience of the child (Tyack, 1974). Family and community were the primary contexts for learning values, knowledge, and skills. In the late 1800s, industrialization, demographic shifts, and urban life were profoundly affecting all communities, both rural and urban. Between 1880 and 1920, more than 23 million immigrants came to the U.S., more than doubling the population of 1880 (Fiske, 1992). Society as a whole was shifting from agriculture to industry and from rural to urban. The sheer numbers and chaotic conditions in schools led many to advocate for a different organizational structure for schools. Tightly controlled public schools became a primary defense against chaos (Tyack, 1974).
A new urban model became the model for all education, became the “one best system” to serve all students (Tyack, 1974). Leaders looked to the structure found in the factory, the Army, and the growing railroad as an organizational model for schools. This industrial model brought to education a focus on order, discipline, and industry, which reformers saw as critical to preparing children for success in the industrial age. Bureaucratic organization brought stability, security, and predictability to the system. According to Tyack, the transformation of the village school into the unified urban system involved: establishing school districts with a centralized bureaucracy; establishing attendance requirements; segregating children by academic progress; training and certifying teachers; designing a sequential curriculum that would be uniform throughout a city; creating examinations to test achievement and determine promotion; designing specialized services such as kindergartens, trade schools, night schools, and institutions for “deviant” children; establishing the large comprehensive high school; and establishing the role of the superintendent to oversee the system. Key players in the development of this model were university presidents, professors, business leaders, and politicians. Teachers and parents were largely absent from the process.
Central to this new system was the efficient organizing, or “grading” of students. This model began in Prussia in the 1500s, originally to prepare youth for the military (Glines, 2001). The belief was that classes consisting of students of different ages and abilities were inefficient and inappropriate, and that discipline, teaching approach, content, and even furniture, should be adjusted to age of the students. This could only happen if children were properly classified. The practical aspect of this graded plan was addressed by John Philbrick, who believed that “educational function and architectural form were inextricably linked” (Tyack, 1974, p. 44). As a result, a new building design would be required. The Philbrick design that was initiated in 1845 and is still in use today has been called the “egg-crate school” and has grade level classrooms arranged along hallways. The graded school, by its definition, depended on examinations in order to know how to place and promote students. Curriculum had to be structured and controlled to serve the goal of the examinations. Textbooks became the dominant source of information, in part to assist inadequately prepared teachers, but also because the tests were based on the textbooks.
Two strong reform movements in education today are pulling in different directions (de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002). One movement, galvanized most recently by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, is focused on making the industrial system of education perform efficiently and effectively. This is about improving, reforming, and restructuring the existing system. Those involved in the other movement, working in a totally different direction, recognize that the industrial model is completely unsuited to the current times, and that it is necessary to design approaches that meet the vision and needs of a new century. The U.S. government and the majority of public schools are located primarily in the first movement. Grassroots education is found in the second category of reformers, who believe that comprehensive, systemic change is necessary, guided by a new educational paradigm.
Powerful pieces of the institutional framework of education work against change. The following elements have been identified by B. Tye (1987, 2000) and K. Tye (1992) as aspects that interfere with change and maintain the status quo: the belief that more testing results in higher standards and improved learning; technology as a cure for education problems; the influence of the knowledge industry; the role played by the media; the degree to which school leaders have adopted business values and practices such as hierarchy, accountability, and seeing schools as composed of interchangeable parts; proposals of simple solutions to complex problems; calls for a national curriculum and national testing; and the “deep structure” of education, “those expectations and practices so embedded in our education system that they can be found in every school in the nation, are seldom questioned, and are almost impossible to change” (Tye, 1987, p. 281). The deep structure includes similarities of classroom design, similarities of curriculum and schedules, reliance on textbooks, the role of standardized testing, and the assumption that school is a custodial institution providing care for children 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 180 days a year.
In addition to these pieces of the institutional framework that work against change, cultural trends and the context within which schooling takes place are generally ignored, and components of the system often work at cross-purposes. Tye (2000) emphasized that attempting changes within the system that are not compatible with the deep structure of education have a high rate of failure. She documented a number of research studies in which schools have tried to initiate change of some aspect of the deep structure, and they have consistently failed. She posited that the deep structure will remain until dramatic social and cultural shifts occur in what society as a whole expects from education. The lens of cultural and societal trends later in this chapter provides an exploration of the topic of cultural shifts and indicates that shifts are underway in segments of society, and that they necessitate a different educational form.
In the tradition of Freire (2000) and Gandhi (1953/1980), grassroots education advocates believe that it is necessary to disengage from the industrial paradigm of education and its deep structure, and create alternatives outside the system. The primary reasons for this position are: (a) The deep structure of education is so profoundly of the industrial era that it cannot serve a radically different era (R. Miller, 2000). The deep structure, along with other powerful pieces of the institutional framework, make changes within the system unlikely to have any lasting effect (B. Tye, 1987, 2000: K. Tye, 1992). (b) Much of U.S. educational legislation, testing, and curriculum are designed by people who have not been teachers and know very little about children or their developmental needs (Miller, 1995). (c) The vision informing education has been one of “economic functionalism” (Vanides, 2001, p. 43) and serves the corporate economy, rather than children, families, and culture. (d) Current reform strategies increase the hierarchical, competitive, and oppressive aspects of schooling (Dillon, 2006; Kozol, 2005). (e) In addition, Sarason (2000) described the current system as a “non-learning system” (p. 192), meaning that it does not learn from its failures, and it is unable to spread success. Massive funds for school reform have flowed to districts during the past 25 years, and very little has changed. The system is profoundly non-responsive to change for the reasons described by Tye and Tye in the previous paragraph. People at the grassroots are exploring the opportunities for public education to be offered through “different sponsoring agencies” (Hutchinson, 2004, p. 43).
Lens of Equity, Justice, and Democracy
A system of public schooling has historically been central to the concept of the United States as a democratic nation. Democracy is a translation from the Greek words, demos, and kratia, meaning “people’s power” (Lummis, 1996, p. 27). Some writers have indicated that schooling itself has become a threat to the strengths and values that build a healthy democracy (Arons, 1997; Emery, 2002; Hutchinson, 2004). From the historical examination of the current system of education, it is clear that the system is inherently designed to sort children, to promote hierarchy and competition, to promote values that maintain the status quo, and to maintain the values of the industrial paradigm. These structures of the educational system do not build people’s power or encourage a citizenry that is educated to participate in a democracy.
Milito (1995) raised the question of who should set the goals for education in a free society. He asserted that it is inappropriate and even antidemocratic for the national government or the state to control the goals of education. Arons (1995) stressed that “nothing can be more destructive of community than the zero sum game of political specification of knowledge, of majority control of content in schooling, of epistemology, of worldview” (p. 128). Critical theorists have concurred and also argued that school is the primary way in which the status quo is maintained and society reproduces the existing structures of power, wealth, and opportunity (Purpel & Shapiro, 1995: Shore, 1992). They have charged that public education is becoming further removed from the qualities that are necessary for a vibrant democracy. The voices of critical theorists align with the work of People’s Education, advocating for an education that includes democratic participation and students’ experiences and knowledge.
The belief that limited government control of education is critical in a healthy democracy has been expressed by writers at various times in history. Krishnamurti, writing in 1953, expressed the belief that government control of education is “a calamity” (p. 75). Steiner (1920), founder of Waldorf schools, and Grundtvig (Lawson, 1991) in the mid-1800s, initiator of the Danish folk school movement, shared a similarly strong position. It is one thing for the government to provide funding and quite another for the government to take control, particularly at the national level. Some writers believe that a national educational policy has had disastrous effects on the quality and equity of education (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Mc Reynolds, 2006; Meier & Wood, 2004; Miller, 1995). No Child Left Behind, in its design and implementation, promotes government and corporate interests and not the best interests of children (e.g., Emery, 2005; Mc Reynolds, 2006). The Center on Educational Policy conducted a survey and found that since NCLB was instituted, 71% of school districts nationally have narrowed curricula in efforts to devote more time to preparing for tests (Dillon, 2006). Kozol (2005) demonstrated repeatedly through his experiences and study in schools across the country that ample evidence indicates that curricula are particularly narrowed for poor children and children of color. He also documented a return to pre-Civil Rights era segregation in many school districts. Arons (1997), Porter (1995), Gardner (1966), and Steiner (1920) have all advocated for a separation of school and state that is similar to the separation of church and state in order to promote healthy democracy.
Freire (2000) described the Western education system as “banking education” (p. 71), where the teacher is seen as the source of all knowledge and the initiator of all learning. Students are the receivers of the deposits from the teacher. Freire said that this approach mirrors oppressive structures of the industrial paradigm and serves the interests of the oppressors, usually those who have economic and political power, and does not serve the development of human beings. Macedo (in Freire, 1998) has argued that Freire’s ideas need to be examined in light of the oppressive nature of the current system of education for everyone; it diminishes everyone’s humanity and the relationship to self, to each other, and to the earth. Freire challenged those who have commitments to human liberation to reject the banking concept of education in its entirety. He observed that often, people with the best of intentions in their efforts for human liberation do not perceive the dehumanizing power of the existing system. The vast majority of efforts for educational change are within the system. Those involved in grassroots education are skeptical of the viability of changes within the existing system and believe that in order to work for true human development and democracy, alternatives outside the system are necessary (Miller, 2000).
hooks (2003) has called on education to engage in a “pedagogy of hope” (p. xiv), creating new ways of teaching and learning so that the education offered to children does not “reinforce systems of domination, imperialism, racism, sexism, or class elitism” (p. xiv). Schools are not places that model democracy in their design, their leadership, or teaching practices. Where do children learn the true meaning of democracy and what it means to live in a democracy with both the rights and the responsibilities? Visionary grassroots education efforts vary in the degree of their commitment to work for social change, but share a commitment to local, democratic participation, equal access for all, and to an educational practice that builds relationships and community.
Lens of Living Systems
Out of the “new sciences” of the 20th century: quantum physics, ecology, complexity mathematics, and chaos theory has emerged a living systems perspective. Systems theorists, working with a living systems perspective, apply general concepts of systems theory to living systems. Schools as communities of human beings are considered a living system (Capra, 2005; Csanyi, 1989; Doll, 1986; Wheatley, 1998). A system of schooling, then, should reflect qualities and strengths of living systems; currently, it does not. If one examines the characteristics of healthy and sustainable living systems, a number of possibilities for transforming education can be found. The following discussion highlights qualities of living systems applied to education that manifest particularly in grassroots education. These include relationship, wholeness and complexity, context, diversity, pattern, creativity, cooperation, dynamic balance, and self-organization.
• Relationship. A central concept of living systems theory is relationship. A system can best be understood in the relationship of its parts, rather than analysis of the components. Systems are organized in such a way that a change in one of the variables will impact other components within the system (Capra, 1996). The elements are so connected that completely separate subgroups cannot be formed. Growing evidence in physics, molecular biology, cybernetics, and brain research supports a belief held by indigenous cultures, ancient and modern, that we are all connected (Capra). An emphasis on relationship is central to grassroots education and was discussed in detail earlier in this chapter.
• Wholeness and Complexity. Living systems are integrated wholes whose properties cannot be reduced to those of smaller parts (Capra, 1996). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Any time a system forms, capacities emerge that could not have been predicted. Systemic properties are destroyed if a system is broken into individual parts. The systems thinker recognizes the incredible complexity of life and that all cannot necessarily be known or understood.
Systems thinking presents a vastly expanded and comprehensive understanding of what it means to be a human being. Such a perspective allows people to see themselves in their wholeness and enormous potential instead of narrowly focusing on the intellect. Tribal educators have believed that developing innate human potential promotes wholeness not only for individuals, but also for families, communities, and the earth (Armstrong, 2005; Cajete, 1994; Jacobs, 1998). This means returning the vast multidimensional nature of being human to children and their education. Central to grassroots education is an honoring of epistemological diversity and an acceptance of the many ways of perceiving and understanding the world.
• Context. A living system must be understood in its larger context and environment, not in isolation (Capra, 2002). Systems thinkers urge a thoughtful consideration of optimum learning environments and an exploration of the possibility of de-institutionalizing children and their learning by placing them back into the richness of life and all that a healthy community can offer. The topic of context is also covered in the section on place-conscious education earlier in this chapter. People at the grassroots are striving to reintegrate children and their learning with the local environment and community.
• Diversity. Living systems support variety and uniqueness, not sameness or conformity. Diversity supports resilience and is so critical that “without variety, systems cannot be self-renewing, and equilibrium, entropy, and dissolution inevitably ensue” (M. Scanlon-Greene, personal communication, July 21, 2005). Variety is an essential quality of life, and a life-giving education will express the variety and diversity of life. The time for a one-size-fits-all educational system, if it ever was appropriate, is long past (Clinchy. 2007).
The deep structure of education discussed on page 23 is antithetical to the qualities of diversity and context that are essential to living systems. Clinchy (2007) described the situation this way:
In the case of the American system of public education, which must always operate within a democratic political system, this means that there cannot and should not be any single approach, any single way of educating the young, that is arbitrarily imposed on all students, all parents, all schools, and all school systems. (p. 106)
Visionary grassroots education projects reflect the unique qualities and needs of a particular place and time, and as a result, they are more likely to honor the living systems concept of diversity.
• Pattern. Pattern is a primary feature of life on earth. Scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers have continually been fascinated with the complexity and beauty of pattern (Capra, 1996). In a living systems approach to education, children are immersed in developing awareness and understanding of patterns in life around them through curriculum, as well as the contexts, such as the natural world, in which learning occurs. Education that takes place outside of classroom walls, in the community and local environment, is more likely to provide this.
The network, a nonlinear pattern, is the predominant pattern in living systems. All levels of life from the cellular level to the dynamics of ecosystems are comprised of networks (Capra, 1996). Social researcher, Naisbitt (1982), identified networks as a growing trend of the times. Instead of being an isolated entity, as a traditional school often is, grassroots projects are created and sustained through a wide variety of networks, relationships, and collaborations.
• Creativity. Creativity, experimentation, and play are essential to living systems, to human beings, and especially to children and their learning (Swimme & Gordon, 2003; Wheatley, 1998). These activities should not be relegated to extra-curricular or leisure time, but be central in the lives of children and their learning (Steiner, 1924; Swimme & Gordon). Both Freire (2000) and Horton, founder of Highlander Folk School (Adams & Horton, 1995), insisted that play and joy are essential to critical thinking and social change. Experiential activities and a wide variety of creative and cultural expressions are essential to all forms of visionary grassroots education.
• Cooperation. No living organism can exist in isolation. The exchange of energy and resources in living systems is maintained by cooperation. “Nature sustains life by creating and nurturing communities” (Capra, 2005, p. 23). Dickinson (2002b) has observed that schools are facing enormous changes in their roles and associated expectations and cannot possibly meet all of these varied expectations without collaboration. Cooperation, collaboration, and community are defining features of grassroots education.
• Dynamic Balance and Renewal. Living systems have built-in feedback, renew themselves, adapt, and make changes where needed; living systems are continually learning. New structures and patterns can spontaneously emerge as a response to points of instability. The state of life for living systems is one of stability, although not equilibrium. Stability is a state of delicate and fluid balance, whereas, equilibrium is a static situation. The equilibrium of repetitive phenomenon and universal laws characterize the current educational system and have resulted in a system that has difficulty making change and applying positive learning (Sarason, 2000; Senge, 1990). Stability, the more dynamic situation, thrives with richness and variety. Education needs the dynamic balance of variety and change that are characteristic of stability, not equilibrium, which seeks to maintain the status quo. A key quality of grassroots education is its dynamic nature, which allows for change and evolution in response to context and needs (Streck, 2003).
• Self-Organizing. Living systems are self-organizing. They have the ability to create new structures and processes in response to context and circumstances. As Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) pointed out, “The complex structures of life emerge from many local, self-organizing efforts, not from a master plan or blueprint” (p. 11). Grassroots education is about saying “No” to the notion of one best system and creating local, self-organizing projects that are reflective of and responsive to local needs and culture while incorporating the larger context.
Living Systems in Summary
To perpetuate a system so completely rooted in the industrial age is to perpetuate mechanistic thinking and its accompanying worldview (Clinchy, 2007; Miller, 2000). The features of living systems, applied to education, present a profoundly different educational approach than the mainstream system of education. Schools, whatever form they take, can be places in which children experience a strong sense of community or extended family and have the time for intimate contact with the natural world, for play, for creativity and exploration, for the arts, and for developing a broad range of human capacities. Grassroots education initiatives situated outside of the industrial paradigm are alternatives that hold potential for bringing a living systems approach to children’s education.
Lens of Humanity
What is life? What does it mean to be human? What is human knowing? These are questions that scientists have approached in a new way in the last century. The emerging responses to these questions are challenging the worldview that has been held by scientists and much of Western society for the last 400 years. The industrial age was a time when much of what it had meant to live on earth was rejected in favor of more modern ways. The metaphor of the machine diminished many qualities that had been central to human life in earlier times. The themes of human nature and human becoming form the crux of what many advocates believe educational change needs to be about (Cajete, 1999; Martin, 1995; Miller, 1999; Noddings, 1995; Palmer, 1999; Seymour, 2004). Freire spoke of a “pedagogy of humankind” (2000), an approach to education that assists people in regaining their humanity. He said, “Men and women are searchers and their ontological vocation is humanization”
(p. 4). Children, too, are searchers on the path to developing the fullness of their humanity. Education should be designed to fully support them on that quest.
Cajete (1999), Freire (2000), and Orr (1994) stressed the need for education to embrace a “biophilic sensibility” (p. 190; p. 77; p. 46), an essential aspect of humanity. “Biophilia” is a term first used by zoologist, Wilson (1984), to describe “the innate human urge to affiliate with other forms of life” (p. 85). Cajete and Orr urged that education must change fundamentally if it is to nurture a biophilic sensibility. The principles of a biophilic education include: learning through direct experience, particularly in the natural world; a focus on the learner; place-based learning experiences; and involvement in community cultural activities. The features of a biophilic education are features that are common in grassroots education initiatives.
Science and mathematics are greatly expanding for Western culture what many indigenous people have already known about what it means to be a human being. A number of authors have urged that this expanded understanding is critical to revisioning education (Armstrong, 2005: Cajete, 1999; Jacobs, 1998; Oliver et al., 2002). The current system of education is out of sync with what it means to be human and with the nature of childhood. “This modern Western mindset is one in which the extension of a particular and limited way of knowing to all reality has produced a world view that has no place for the quintessentially human” (Sloan, 1983, p. 10). Grassroots education initiatives situated outside of the infrastructure of industrial schooling provide a context in which a broader range of human qualities can be expressed.The following list of human qualities was distilled from scientists, sociologists, philosophers, theologians, and educators, especially T. Berry. (2001), W. Berry (1990), Cajete (1994), Capra (1996, 2002), Swimme and Gordon (2003), Houston (1982), Jacobs (1998), Krishnamurti (1953), Oliver et al., (2002), Sloan (1983) and Steiner (1924). For ease of reading, the characteristics are placed into three groups. The emphasis is not meant to be on categories, but on an overall picture of the human being.
|Self |linguistic capacities |
| |memory |
| |symbolic capacities and abstract thought |
| |self-awareness |
| |rationalization and reason |
| |will |
| |reflective consciousness |
| | |
|Community |relationship |
|(people and earth) |sense of morality |
| |values such as courage, hope, generosity, patience |
| |humor and laughter |
| |story, myth, and poetry |
| |agriculture |
| |concept of historicity |
| | |
|Spirit |imagination |
|(a non-material realm that inspires, |quest for meaning |
|enlivens, and creates connection) |seeking freedom and truth |
| |ceremony |
| |ability to dream |
| |appreciation of beauty |
| | |
| |
|Artistic expression, |
|music, |
|attunement with nature, and |
|deep tragic elements |
|are expressed in all areas. |
Figure 1. Quintessential human qualities
What is most striking in this list of human qualities is how few of them are acknowledged or developed by mainstream education. Much of education has become narrowly focused on intellectual endeavors and outcomes measured by test scores, often neglecting the arts and humanities. Palmer (1998) has challenged people to consider the consequences of such an education: “When we fail to honor the deepest questions of our lives, education remains mired in technical triviality, cultural banality, and worse. In too many schools, teachers and students spend their days on things unworthy of the human heart” (p. 8). Educational and cultural philosophers, such as those cited prior to the list of human qualities, have questioned how society can send children to a place for most of their childhood that does not value and strengthen much of their human capacity. They have proposed that this results in enormous costs to individuals, to communities, to culture, and to life on earth as a whole when this narrow vision of being human is perpetuated. Grassroots education advocates are among those who are exploring how different educational venues and approaches can return much of what is quintessentially human to education.
Lens of Cultural and Societal Trends
Education is deeply embedded in the fabric of culture. An awareness and understanding of cultural trends can assist educators in creating educational approaches with a vision for the future and with the flexibility to respond to continuing changes.
In many fields of study and areas of life, people are articulating a new way of viewing the world. Numerous authors have spoken with thousands of people who describe a similar shift of consciousness (Ardaugh, 2005; Elgin, 1993; Ray & Anderson; 2000). Ray and Anderson conducted 13 years of survey research on more than 100,000 Americans, held hundreds of focus groups, and did about 60 in-depth interviews. From this exhaustive research, they identified an emerging subgroup in American culture whom they call the Cultural Creatives. This is a diverse group that cuts across lines of race and class, not very different demographically from the country as a whole, although it does not appear to involve the very rich or the very poor. These two researchers estimated that 50 million adults in the U.S. share common elements of worldview, values, and lifestyle. Cultural Creatives are generally artistic, spiritual (though non-denominational), socially tolerant, interested in community, are concerned about the environment, and are redefining success away from an economic and career measure and toward a life “focused on personal fulfillment, social conscience, and a better future for the planet” (Mc Kibben in Ivanko & Kivirist, 2004, p. 43). According to Ray and Anderson (2000), “the kind of learning that Cultural Creatives like is intimate, engaged knowledge that is imbued with the rich, visceral, sensory stuff of life . . . . to be smart in the global village means thinking with your stomach, thinking rhythmically, thinking organically, thinking in terms of yourself as an interwoven piece of nature” (p. 9). This description of education that was shared by a large subgroup of the population has implications for how educational change might be approached.
Naisbitt in Megatrends (1982) and Naisbitt and Aburdene in Megatrends 2000 (1990) a number of trends that carry a similar theme. These trends support the development of an education shaped by a living systems approach and a renewed understanding of what it means to be human, education that could better be formed at the grassroots. It is important to note that although Naisbitt did his research in the 80s and 90s, in a recent interview on National Public Radio, he noted that the trends are continuing today (Naisbitt, 2006). Naisbitt documented the following trends: a renaissance in the arts; a growing desire for connection to cultural traditions and identity; a longing for greater people contact to balance the effects of a high tech lifestyle; a growing belief that the most important resources are people; an increased valuing of global education, languages, and peace partnerships; a religious revival that is ultimately seeking for meaning and affirmation of the value of life; and a shift of the source of influence back to local communities and the grassroots.
This emerging worldview has been referred to as integral (Seymour, 2004), translucent (Ardaugh, 2005), holistic (Battista, 1977), Gaian (Miller, 2000), ecological (Capra, 1996), relational and participatory (Reason & Bradbury, 2001), as well as postmodern (Elkind, 2001) and systemic (Ackoff, 1984). Hock, founder of VISA, (1999) provocatively described the times in which we live in this way:
We are living on the knife’s edge of one of these rare and momentous turning points in human history (p. 5) . . . . We are at that very point in time when a four-hundred-year-old age is rattling in its deathbed and another is struggling to be born . . . . a shifting of culture, science, society, and institutions enormously greater than the world has ever experienced. (p. 310)
This worldview shifts from mechanistic values of individualism, competition, growth and progress, objectivism, and confidence in an amoral technology to a search for wholeness and meaning, relationship, subjectivity, cooperation, networking, collective welfare, sustainability, and intuition (Harmon, 1988; Hatley, 1988).
Another perspective on trends that supplements that of Naisbitt was described by Elkind (2001), Gibbs (2000), Martin (1992), and Neufeld and Mate (2005), who specifically addressed cultural and family changes affecting education. Elkind described society as having changed from modern to postmodern. The postmodern period in which society is now living has challenged virtually all of the values and roles of the modern period. Of particular importance to education, parents have shifted many of their traditional roles to the school, which in turn is greatly changing the role and definition of the teacher. Gibbs corroborated the dramatic changes in family life that are impacting schools. She stated that “The average American family moves every 2-3 years, 25% of families are one-parent families, 80% of two-parent families work, and the average family spends 27 waking minutes a day together” (p. 36). Family circumstances today make it difficult for families to pass on to children a sense of identity and self-worth and shared cultural values. These profound changes in family life have led children to rely on peers for their sense of community and socializing. This phenomenon, called “peer orientation” by psychologists, Neufeld and Mate, interferes with healthy individual and social development and encourages a hostile and prematurely precocious youth culture. In addition, the ever increasing trend of socialization by the media, especially television, is pervasive. This all leaves a huge challenge for the schools. Out of necessity, schools must teach social skills and provide the sense of community, modeling, and support previously found in families and communities. Martin has advocated that schools should become a domestic context and teach values and skills previously associated with home. Grassroots education initiatives are one of the educational contexts in which people are striving to integrate education with home and community life.
Lens of Child Development and Neurological Potential
The learning theory that dominated during the 18th and 19th centuries was generally behaviorist (Clinchy, 2007: Darling-Hammond, 1993). Intelligence was considered to be inherited and fixed, and the brain was seen as a blank slate waiting to be filled. Marshall (1997), former Director of the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, pointed out that the system of schooling that was designed in the 19th century has produced “brain- and learning-antagonistic environments that actually inhibit integrative learning, distort the learner’s identity and his or her competence as a learner, and discourage inventiveness, inquiry, and complex cognition” (p. 179). In recent years, researchers have discovered an enormous amount of information in the biological sciences, the brain sciences, and even anthropology and archeology that is providing a much deeper understanding of how human beings learn. The amount of information on brain-based learning is vast, and it is an active field of research with new information continually being generated. This can make it difficult to stay current with developments in the field. I will not presume to present a summary of this field, but will point out a few of the key figures and central themes, along with some cautions.
Diamond (1967) has been a pioneer in the field of brain research and its application to education. Her research challenged the long-held assumption that intelligence is narrow and fixed, and demonstrated instead that the brain is much more malleable than previously believed. Stimulation in the environment can cause the growth of new neural connections in the brain. This research has been confirmed and expanded by dozens of other researchers (e.g. Green, Greenough, & Schlumph, 1983; Kemperman, Kuhn, & Gage, 1998). The work of Greenough and Anderson (1991) particularly corroborated that of Diamond. They studied enriching environments for more than 20 years and cited three findings of particular importance for brain development. Learning needs to include varied experiences, challenging problem solving, and interactive feedback.
Gardner (1991) is another key figure in the field of brain-based learning and teaching. He proposed the existence of at least eight forms of intelligence, and he believed that one type of intelligence should not have priority over another in how educational experiences are designed and structured. Other researchers (Hall, 2004; Hanschumacher, 1980) have offered evidence that supports varied learning modalities or multiple intelligences. For example, in the area of artistic intelligence, Hanschumacher (1980) reviewed 36 studies involving the arts and learning. He concluded that integrating the arts into education enhances language development, creativity, reading readiness, and social development, as well as supporting general intellectual development and positive attitudes toward school. Jensen (2005) noted an interesting relationship. Countries such as Japan, Hungary, and the Netherlands, which have art and music integrated in their curriculum, rank near the top in math and science scores.
Growing knowledge about how children most fully develop and learn emphasizes the importance of hands-on experience, real world and relational contexts, and collaboration. This approach is particularly important for groups whose members have not been served well by the current system (Dickinson, 2000). Diamond and Hopson (1998) described characteristics of environments that promote optimal brain development. These are environments that: encourage social interaction for a large percentage of activities; include consistent positive emotional support; promote the development of a broad range of skills and interests that are mental, physical, aesthetic, social, and emotional; promote exploration, creativity, and fun; involve all the senses at various times; allow for a certain amount of self-direction; and allow the learner to be an active participant. Their description has striking similarities to qualities of living systems and to the list of quintessential human qualities discussed earlier in this chapter.
Jensen (2005), who studied extensively the application of brain research to education, has believed that this research has the potential to impact teaching strategies, school environment, assessment schedules, and the role of the arts and movement in education. Key conclusions that can be made from the research as a whole are that learning and development are more complex than has been understood, learning benefits from the alignment of child development and neurological development with teaching, and much richer learning environments and experiences are needed.
People in grassroots initiatives are often looking for educational experiences that are more in alignment with developmental stages and the myriad of ways in which people learn. Neuroscience and its relationship to learning is a relatively new field. Much new research and information is being generated, and the implications for education are not always agreed upon. Jensen (2005) has urged educators to become knowledgeable about topics of brain research and education, to get involved in action research, and to share new information with colleagues and parents. He also cautioned that just because an educational approach is labeled brain-compatible does not mean that it is supported by research, or that it is educationally appropriate.
Lens of School Size
Small schools have historically been the educational context in rural areas. Many small schools have experienced pressures to consolidate with other school districts in order to achieve the perceived benefits of larger schools or as a cost-saving measure. The issue of consolidation was discussed earlier in this chapter. Research is now lending support to people involved with small schools who want their schools to stay small.
Small school research began in the 1980s and 1990s with large-scale quantitative studies that “firmly established small schools as more productive and effective than large ones . . . . areas of increased effectiveness include higher academic achievement, increased student satisfaction, and fewer dropouts and behavior problems” (Raywid, 1999, p. 2). She went on to say, “All of these things we have confirmed with a clarity and a level of confidence rare in the annals of educational research. It is rare indeed, to find empirical support or justification for the large high school” (Raywid, 1999, p. 2).
More recent research has included case studies that examine specific aspects of small schools. These studies confirm the findings of the earlier quantitative research (Raywid, 1999). Overall, the research of the last 15 years has “convincingly demonstrated that small schools are superior to larger ones in many measures and equal to them on the rest” (Cotton, 1996, p. 3). This research has strongly indicated that small schools can help to narrow the achievement gap between White, middle class, or affluent students and poor or minority students. One example of this research is the Matthew Project. Howley, Strange, and Bickel (2000), working with the Matthew Project, conducted research in California, West Virginia, Ohio, Georgia, and Montana and consistently found that small schools are of particular benefit to economically disadvantaged and minority students.
Jimerson, with the Rural School and Community Trust (2006), examined small school research and identified 10 research-based reasons that small schools are effective. These include:
1. There is greater participation in extra-curricular activities, and that is linked to academic success.
2. Small schools are safer.
3. Kids feel they belong.
4. Small class size allows more individualized instruction.
5. Good teaching methods are easier to implement.
6. Teachers feel better about their work.
7. Mixed-ability classes avoid condemning some students to low expectations.
8. Multi-age classes promote personalized learning and encourage positive social interactions.
9. Smaller districts mean less bureaucracy.
10. More grades in one school alleviate many problems of transitions to new schools. (p. 7)
One aspect of the research that is not clear is whether smallness is of benefit to economically advantaged students (Howley et al., 2000). In addition, small school proponents have cautioned that downsizing is not a panacea, and that the unique features of small schools must be fully understood to be implemented well, or a watering down of the benefits of small school benefits can result (Dewees, 1999; Gladden, 1998; Meier, 2000). Visher, Teitelbaum, and Emanuel (1999) agreed that school size alone is not enough to produce positive results, but asserted that small schools do have the potential to have an indirect effect on students through factors that are easier to implement in small schools, such as more intimate relationships and more responsive curriculum and instruction.
Issues related to small schools continue to be explored. For example: How big is small? and What types of governance and accountability work best in small schools? The issue of cost analysis is still being debated. Some researchers have indicated that the costs per pupil in small schools may be slightly higher, but the costs per graduated student are less (Raywid, 1999). Rotherham (1999) suggested that large schools are more expensive because of the amount of administration.
Lens of School Facilities
A pragmatic perspective from which to look at school change is that of school facilities. Architects Bingler (2001), Taylor (2000), and Nair (Designer/Builder, 2005) have all cited the cost of school facilities as an ignored but urgent issue in educational debates. The costs associated with continuing to build and maintain the existing type of facilities are unsustainable. Lundt (2004), a futurist, proposed that, “In their present brick-and mortar form, educational institutions represent a monetary black hole” (p. 19). Grassroots projects that emerge from a variety of collaborations and take place in varied community and natural contexts have the potential to reduce and/or share the costs of educational facilities.
These lenses have been described to provide windows into the variety of reasons that are motivating people at the grassroots to create or become involved in innovative educational projects outside of mainstream education. Orr (1994) called for “an educational perestroika, a rethinking of the process and substance of education at all levels” (p. 17). From educators, to critical theorists, to philosophers, scientists, and social analysts, a growing number of voices are urging the redesign of education around the values of relationship, community, and local place. In the spirit of educational perestroika, grassroots education offers an approach that reaches beyond the industrial paradigm (lens of history), an approach that emerges from the needs of this time in history (lens of the purpose of education and lens of cultural and societal trends), that aligns with what it means to be a healthy living system (lens of living systems), that more fully supports and develops a broader understanding of humanity and its neurological potential (lens of our humanity and lens of child development and neurological potential), and that serves the interests of justice, democracy, and environmental sustainability (lens of equity, justice, and democracy).
Types of Visionary Grassroots Education
The definition of grassroots initiatives presented in chapter 1 emphasizes that grassroots initiatives emerge from local people in response to identified desires and issues, and they take place outside of government and corporate influence and control. In the area of education, grassroots initiatives can take a wide variety of forms, serving many different issues and ages. This study is focused on grassroots education efforts that include children and that offer alternatives to the industrial model of education. Most parents and educators who are involved with grassroots education of various kinds generally share the common philosophical perspective of saying “No” to mainstream education and the industrial education model (Miller, 2000). For descriptive purposes, the types of initiatives are presented here in four categories: a) homeschooling groups and learning cooperatives, b) community learning centers, c) innovative independent schools, and d) folk schools. In some cases, the distinction between the types can become blurred as one type merges into another type (Mintz, 2000). For example, homeschool cooperatives sometimes evolve into a learning center or into an independent school. In some cases, a learning center may include learning cooperatives, an independent school or schools, as well as classes and activities offered by the learning center (Miller).
It is important to make a distinction between grassroots education and community education. They have common values and goals and at times merge to become one and the same. Community education in the United States has its roots in Flint, Michigan in the 1830s. Frank Manley and Charles Stewart Mott developed the concept of the lighted schoolhouse that became the foundation of a community education movement that continues today. Their early programs focused on recreational opportunities for students as a preventative to delinquency, and then grew into programs that sought to meet needs of the whole community (Dickinson, 2002a). The central belief of the lighted schoolhouse was that schools are for the entire community because learning is lifelong (Decker & Boo, 1995). The four principles of the lighted schoolhouse concept have also become central in today’s community education: the school provides everyone in the community with extended learning opportunities; schools are understood as a community resource and are open evenings and weekends for a variety of activities in addition to the traditional school day; the programs and activities available in the school/community center reflect the interests and needs of the members of the community; and the quality of education for children in a community improves with a close relationship between school and community. Many lighted schoolhouses were opened across the country in the 1950s and 1960s, many of them funded by the Mott Foundation (Dickinson). The community learning center model being implemented in some Minnesota public schools is an example of this type of approach and is discussed further in the section below on community learning centers.
In some cases, community education and community learning centers have focused primarily on providing support services to schools such as social and health services, academic support or enrichment, or recreational opportunities (Schumer, Gomez, Kielsmeier, & Supple, 1993). Other centers focus exclusively on adult education. These centers are certainly valuable. In this dissertation research, however, I examined community-based learning initiatives that are striving to offer comprehensive learning opportunities for all ages of learners.
One of the grassroots projects selected as a case study site for this research, Cobscook Community Learning Center (CCLC), emerged as a community organizing or community development project with a strong educational component. In this respect, it became a hybrid of community organizing, community development, and education. CCLC has a clear interest in effecting social change in the region, in developing community assets, and in providing educational opportunities.
Homeschooling and Learning Cooperatives
A brief history of homeschooling is offered here to provide a context for the emergence of homeschooling cooperatives. The homeschooling tradition has a long history in the United States. No state-run public schools existed in the pre-revolutionary years, and children were taught primarily at home. After the American Revolution, states began to support the development of organized schooling, and in 1852, Massachusetts passed the first compulsory attendance law. By 1918, every state had such a law, although attendance may have been required only few months of the year (Lines, 2000; Nemer, 2002). Parents faced criminal charges if they kept their children at home. Some traditional communities such as the Amish, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists have always kept their children at home or run their own schools. Beginning in the 1920s and continuing today, lawsuits continue to address issues involving parents, states, and school district rights of educational control. Homeschooling is now a legal alternative in all states, although regulations vary from state to state. In all states, families must at least file some basic information with the state or a local education agency (Lines, 2000). In spite of the legal freedom to homeschool, some families still stay “underground” out of fear or for ideological reasons. As a result, no definitive list of homeschoolers exists, and the national numbers of homeschoolers can only be an educational estimate (Lines, 2000).
For many years, homeschooling was on the periphery of society. Families chose to homeschool because of religious beliefs, geographic isolation, or because of frequent family travel. In the 1960s, this began to change in a climate of critique of American education. An alternative education movement emerged, which for some meant homeschooling (Lines, 2000; Miller, 2002; Nemer, 2002). Some people found schools to be too rigid and conservative. This group followed a philosophy advocated by educators such as John Holt, (1976) who suggested that the best learning takes place when children can pursue their own interests and can learn through experiences in a wide variety of activities with parental support. One of the sites in this research study, Headwaters School, a learning cooperative in Arkansas, emerged during this time period.
Levy (2007) is one scholar who has associated a rise in homeschooling in some states with court-ordered desegregation in the 1970s. Levy used event history analysis to identify a correlation between the passage of homeschooling legislation and school desegregation levels. Passage of homeschooling legislation corresponded to states with higher rates of mandatory desegregation. He stated that “it appears that the avoidance of the multicultural experience in public schools is one possible catalyst for the evolution and growth of homeschooling” (p. 14).
In the 1980s, as the public schools became more progressive, conservative religious families turned to homeschooling in much larger numbers. Dr. James Dobson, host of Focus on the Family, has had many programs about and encouraging homeschooling (Nemer, 2002). A group of Christian leaders in the 1990s advocated a movement called “Exodus 2000,” whose purpose was “to trump the insidious anti-academic, pro-social control policies of Goals 2000 with the only option available to today’s families: the rapid withdrawal of children and grandchildren from a corrupt public school system” (Nemer, p. 3)
The National Center for Educational Statistics (2007) released homeschool statistics for 2006 based on 2003 research and estimated the number of homeschooled students in the United States (Princiotta & Bielick, 2006). They also described the characteristics of these students and families based on a survey of the National Household Education Surveys Programs (NHES), who conducted interviews with parents of 11,994 students, of whom 239 were homeschooled. The NHES reported a 29% increase in the number of homeschooled students between 1999 and 2003. “The percentage of the student population being homeschooled rose from 1.7% in 1999 to 2.2% in 2003” (NHES, p. iv). A number of groups showed an increase in homeschooling rates: .9%-1.7% increase among students with parents who have a high school diploma or less; 1.6%-2.4% among students in grades 6-8; and .7%-1.4% among students in single-parent households where the parent was in the labor force. Nemer (2002) noted that in the 1999-2000 school year, more children were being homeschooled than were in charter schools—350,000. This compares to homeschooling figures that vary from 757,000 to 2 million.
The number of homeschoolers is also greater than the number of public school enrollments in each of 39 states. Lines (2000) said that she knew of no states where homeschooling numbers were in decline. The survey also documented the following reasons cited by families as most important for homeschooling: 31% reported concerns about the school environment such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure; 30% named religious or moral instruction; and 16% of parents cited “dissatisfaction with the academic instruction available at other schools” (p. iv).
Lines (2000) indicated the potential for growth among ethnic minorities, who are currently under-represented among homeschoolers. One study, a survey conducted by Lines at Vanderbilt and Nashville State Tech (a selective private university and a 2-year college), while limited in its scope, backed this up. When students were asked if they would homeschool their own children, 43% of African-American students said “yes” or “maybe.” Less than 25% of Caucasian students responded “yes” or “maybe” (Lines).
What seems to hold true for many parents who homeschool their children, whether they are conservative Christians, liberal progressives, or somewhere in between, is that “they consider their values and beliefs to be incompatible with standard methods of schooling” (Nemer, 2002, p. 16). The motivations for homeschooling generally fall into three categories: ideological—primarily concerned about values; pedagogical—primarily concerned with how children learn best; and environmental—logistical and practical reasons to homeschool such as geographic isolation or travel, help needed with farm or business chores, minimal family importance placed on academics, or concerns about the environment in which education takes place. This last one, concerns about the educational environment, is a fairly recent development (Nemer). An example is in inner-city neighborhoods where homeschooling can provide a safer environment that protects children from drug and gang problems in local schools.
A number of observations can be drawn from the research on homeschooling (Nemer, 2002): research on homeschooling is limited; the increase in homeschooling in the last 2 decades has “drawn people from all ethnic and class groups” (p. 4); the ideological position of homeschooling parents is much broader than in the past, having moved beyond fundamentalist Christians; and homeschoolers now include a broader range of socioeconomic groups, including the poor and both rural and urban. She summarized, “During the last decade, homeschooling has grown tremendously both in numbers and in diversity. It is no longer a movement of just White, middle-class, Christian fundamentalists” (p. 6). Indications of this diversity can be seen in: organizations such as the Native American Homeschool Association, African American Homeschool Network, Afrocentric Homeschoolers Association, Latino Homeschoolers, National Black Home Educators Resource Association, and Native Americans for Home Education; and articles such as “Making the Grade: Black Families See the Benefits of Homeschooling” (Wahisi, 1995) or “Homeschooling’s Progressive Wing” (Mann, 1999). The Global Village School is an example of the shifting values and constituency of the homeschool movement. It is an online K-12 homeschool diploma program whose mission is to “provide a quality education that promotes peace, understanding, and respect. Our goal is to prepare students to be global citizens, informed leaders, and effective agents of change” (Carless, 2003). Students take core academic subjects, as well as peace and diversity courses, as they take part in service learning and activities in their communities.
Research on homeschooling has not always been accurate, and one must examine closely who conducted the research, for what purposes it was conducted, and who participated. For example, a highly publicized article presented “the results of the largest survey and testing program for students in homeschools to date” (Rudner, 1999, p. 1). Upon closer examination, it is clear that the research study population was not representative of the larger homeschool movement. The data were provided by Bob Jones University, which serves a largely White, conservative, Christian population of homeschoolers.
Researchers examining the growth of homeschooling have raised challenging questions such as: “What will become of the communitarian ideal if more and more families decide to filter society’s voice from their children’s education? Does the increase of choice to forego formal schools mean more democracy or does it impair democracy? How might the movement toward homeschooling drive policy shifts concerning tax laws and public school funding?” (Nemer, 2002, p. 17).
Nemer (2002) has urged more research on homeschooling, which she has believed could provide information and insights for all schooling contexts about individualized instruction, multi-age learning, child development, developmentally appropriate learning, and issues of cultural reproduction and social stratification. Lines (2000), former researcher with the U.S. Department of Education, believed that “the growth of homeschooling is one of the most significant social trends of the past half century” (p. 74). She stated that the majority of families who homeschool are not “separatists or isolationists, but active members of civil society,” and that the homeschooling movement has the potential to be an influence and inspiration in the renewal of American education, or “at least to preserve ideas and values that are out of fashion with the education establishment” (Lines, p. 80).
Homeschool cooperatives are a fairly recent development in the history of the homeschool movement. These cooperatives are groups of families who come together to share in the responsibility of educating their children (Vaughan, 2003). Families contribute their time and abilities in a variety of ways during the school day or evenings and weekends. This allows some parents to homeschool and also have part- or full-time jobs. Cooperatives provide a variety of benefits such as adult mentors, social activities, and opportunities to interface with the local community. They can take many forms and are often flexible and change over time. They may be 1 day a week or as many as 5. They may be limited to specific activities such as sports or art, or they may provide full academic programming. They may be as small as a few families or as large as 100 families in some urban areas. Headwaters School in this study is an example of a cooperative that has gone through a number of changes during its 34-year history.
In La Farge, Wisconsin, a homeschool cooperative began in the spring of 2007. The cooperative was the result of half a year of planning by a small group of interested parents. They created the following mission statement: “The Kickapoo Homeschool Cooperative (KHC) brings families together to share resources and talents for diverse educational experiences in our local and natural environments” (KHC website, para. 1). They also listed their core values in their brochure, which included: “building relationships and a sense of community among children and their families; earth stewardship; experiential and fun learning; nourishing the natural desire to learn; learning in creative, safe environments; and respecting ourselves, each other, the Earth, and all living things” (KHC website, para. 3). Currently, the cooperative serves about 20 families and offers programming 2 days a week that includes art, physical education, Spanish, local agriculture, and drama. It costs $25 a year to join the co-op, $20 to participate in each program for the semester, and $10-20 for materials for the semester. Each family is asked to volunteer in whatever way works for their schedule and interests. This might mean teaching, helping with clean-up, soliciting donations, planning an event, organizing field trips, or serving on the steering committee. The families that participate are fairly representative of the demographics of the area. Co-op classes take place in space donated by the local school district. Because of shrinking enrollment, the school had a number of empty classrooms and offered them to the cooperative for $1 a month, along with the use of other facilities at the school. The school administrators, the school board, and the homeschooling families feel that this is a mutually beneficial relationship. An emerging feature in some school districts is the development of learning centers that provide support and even classes for homeschoolers (Mintz, 2000). This may be a direction in which the La Farge School District will choose to go in the future.
Community Learning Centers
Community learning center generally refers to a type of learning context that is community-based and people-centered (Leue, 2000; Miller, 2000). A community learning center framework is a model that is flexible and dynamic and allows for a variety of models to function within it. Community learning centers can be found in public school settings and in the grassroots context. Both are discussed below. Cobscook Community Learning Center, one of the sites of this research, is also an example and is described in detail in chapter 4.
Growing numbers of year-round and extended-day community learning centers are open across the country. Many of these are offering varied learning opportunities in arts, technology, and environmental education, in addition to the traditional curriculum. The community learning center as a public school model has three basic components: life-long learning for all members of the community, greatly expanded use of school facilities, and development and use of community resources as an integral part of the school program (Decker & Boo, 1995; Parson, 1999). A number of these schools are exploring alternative financing options and are creating work-study opportunities on the school site that generate funding for the school. A central commitment is that these community learning centers use their resources to improve both learning and the overall quality of life in their communities (Parson). Parson has observed that a community learning center can be an important force in community renewal.
In St. Paul, Minnesota, a number of schools have formed under the umbrella term, Community Learning Center (CLC). The administration of President G. H. Bush established the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) to support the development of “break-the-mold” schools that could serve as models in the restructuring movement. One of the nine original design teams proposed a community learning center model. A St. Paul, Minnesota consulting firm, with a grant from New American Schools, was commissioned to design a community learning center school (Designs for Learning, 2006).The focus of the CLC is on integration of school and community. Each CLC brings together a variety of community groups, government agencies, school administration and employees, local businesses, parents, and other community members. The ideal of a CLC includes a number of features. It is open year-round and extended hours. It serves all ages and includes intergenerational programs. Governance is community designed, and decision-making involves the entire community. The curriculum is community-based, and education takes place throughout the community, not just in the classroom. The center serves as a community technology center. The center has a wide variety of community partnerships and collaborations that serve families and children. Groups of teachers work with students of varying ages and abilities. The center offers early childhood programs, traditional school programs, family education programs, and adult academic and skill programs. The school becomes a center for family life. The CLC model has been used in various settings in Minnesota, including urban, rural, reservation, and charter.
Philosophically, the public school community learning center model shares some common features with grassroots community learning centers, yet some important differences exist. Although the public school model is local and community-based, it is ultimately accountable to some level of the government, and it is subject to whatever requirements are connected to the funding sources. In most cases of public school community learning centers, a number of the elements of the “deep structure” (B. Tye, 1987, p. 281) of education remain intact, such as the division of children into grade levels, the role of standardized testing, and the assumption that school is a custodial institution providing care for children.
Outside of the public school system, some organizations are also using the term, community learning center (Miller, 2000). In general, this term is used to describe programs that are grounded in the belief that learning takes place in the resources of the environment and in the relationships among people. The community learning center model encourages democratic participation by involving all members of a community in discussion and collaborative decision-making. Miller documented a wide variety of learning centers in his book, Creating Learning Communities, and he observed that community learning centers can be informed by a wide variety of philosophies. Some advocates of community learning centers are heavily focused on how children best learn and are seeking contexts that support their full development. Other learning center proponents are more concerned with the social and political implications of education and are seeking education that is more democratic and less prescribed or controlled. A number of learning centers have opened where learning to learn is the primary focus, along with the opportunity to apply what has been learned in practical and creative ways. A community learning center framework allows for diversity of program design, curriculum, and scheduling, as well as a wide variety of parent and community involvement options. L’Amoreaux (2000), consultant and facilitator of life-long cyber learning communities, offered these general characteristics of community learning centers. In community learning centers:
• Self-directed learning is encouraged.
• Life-long learning opportunities are offered.
• Activities operate in a non-hierarchical structure.
• Participation is voluntary.
• Participants choose their level of involvement.
• The belief that there are many different ways to learn and different ways to support learning is foundational.
• Funding varies from public funding, to membership fees, or tuition.
As mentioned in chapter 1, Ellis (2000) observed that “Cooperative community life-long learning centers may be among the most seminal innovations of the past decade. They may be the seeds for a deep, fundamental change in the education learning system of the future” (p. 19).
Innovative Schools
Raywid (1994) observed that alternative public schools represent a clear departure from the traditional structure and organization of mainstream schooling. Alternative public schools have served two primary purposes. One type of alternative school that is common within school systems was designed to serve students who were not successful in the traditional setting. Raywid identified three types of alternatives. Popular innovations are focused on making school challenging and fulfilling. Within the school system, these may be magnet schools or programs. Last chance programs are a last opportunity for students before they are expelled. The focus is on behavior modification, usually with limited attention to curriculum or pedagogy. Remedial focus alternatives provide academic, physical, or social/emotional remediation or support.
All of these types of alternatives are also found in the private sector. Grassroots education initiatives are most often popular innovations. These are schools that practice a particular innovative pedagogical approach such as experiential education, brain-based education, multi-age education, or an approach that is inspired by or subscribes to a particular educational philosophy and pedagogy such as Dewey, Montessori, Steiner (Waldorf Schools), or A.S. Neil (Free Schools) (Martin, R., 2000). Youth Initiative High School, one of the sites of this research, is an example of an innovative alternative school that draws inspiration from Waldorf pedagogy. It is described in detail in chapter 4.
Folk Schools
Folk schools, since their inception, have focused on older youth and adults. In recent years in this country, some folk schools are becoming more inclusive of children and families (Scandinavian Seminar, 2004). Folk schools start with the premise that community needs and educational needs are interwoven, and schools that build on and develop the values and assets of local life have the most to offer individuals and communities. The folk school model that has inspired folk schools around the world has its roots in 19th century Denmark with Nikolaj Grundtvig, whose visionary education is credited with supporting Denmark’s successful transition to democracy (Borish, 1991). Formal education in Denmark had been in Latin and available only to the upper class, which Grundtvig saw creating a large rift between life and learning. His concern was that schools should bring dignity to rural people, who comprised most of Denmark’s population at the time. He wanted education to instill a life-long love of learning and a pride of culture in people. “Schools for Life” (Borish, p. 192) as Grundtvig called them, were to assist people in understanding their own identity and to strengthen and empower communities (Lawson, 1991). Grundtvig’s philosophy was based on a deep faith in the intrinsic abilities of all individuals and a belief that education should be available to everyone. Central to the early folk schools was an emphasis on group singing, the “living word” or oral instruction, and communal life. Folk schools were not for professional or vocational training, but to educate individuals to participate actively in society. The folk school movement became a decentralized, grassroots movement that gave rural people a means for personal and social transformation. Grundtvig believed that this kind of schooling would build the foundation of skills and understandings for creating a peaceable and just society.
Folk schools, though conceived of by Grundtvig, are informed philosophically and pedagogically today in the United States by the life and work of several visionary and influential thinkers: Belenky et al., (1997), Berry (1990), Dewey (1938), Freire (2000), and Gandhi (1953/1980). In the United States, folk schools have developed in two directions. Both trace their roots to Grundtvig in Denmark, although their leaders have chosen very different paths to express this shared heritage. The more common form of folk schools in this country is represented by the John C. Campbell Folk School, founded in 1925 in Brasstown, North Carolina. It stated its mission as: “The Folk School seeks to bring people to two kinds of development: inner growth as creative, thoughtful individuals, and social development as tolerant, caring members of a community” (John C. Campbell Folk School Catalog, 2005, p. 1). Individual expression and social interaction are developed and supported through classes in music, crafts, nature studies, gardening, cooking, dance, and other expressions of culture. These schools carry on Grundtvig’s educational philosophy through: learning that connects heart, hands, and mind; learning that is inspiring for both students and teachers; an emphasis on the oral tradition; and education as a lifelong endeavor. These schools have less of an overt mission of working for social change.
The other form that folk schools have taken in the United States also emerged in the early 1920s. The Danish folk school model was attractive to political progressives of the time who wanted to bring together economic, political, and educational experiences. Poconos People’s College near Henryville, PA and Waddington People’s College in Wheeling, WV developed out of this interest (Smith, 1996). Perhaps the best known is Highlander Folk School in New Market, TN, founded by Myles Horton and Donald West in 1932, renamed in recent years Highlander Education and Research Center (Adams & Horton, 1975). Horton had invested considerable study and time exploring educational philosophies and approaches for use in empowering the mountain people of Appalachia. Most of the institutions that Horton visited offered only what he called “national education” (p. 15), which was not adapted to any particular region or group of people. As Horton saw it, “Everyone in the U.S. was to learn the same subjects in the same sequence or fall woefully behind the national average” (p. 15). To Horton, most of what was considered education did not grow out of the needs of the people. Curriculum was imposed on children and adults with little consideration for age differences or personal needs or local context.
The Highlander approach to folk education, which is taken into communities in addition to being onsite at the Highlander Center, includes: a group of not more than 30; sitting in a circle; sharing, reflecting, and analyzing; sharing culture through food, stories, music, etc.; developing resources for collective action; encouraging leadership; and encouraging organizations to change unjust structures (S. Williams, personal communication, Oct. 1, 2005). Highlander has provided a unique place for training and empowering community leaders who are seeking justice and democracy (de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002).
Folk schools connect and build a myriad of community resources and capitalize on networking and collaboration among local groups. Folk schools can provide much needed enrichment and balance to public schools during an era of enormous pressure for academic and intellectual achievement. Public school/folk school collaborations are happening in some folk schools. Cobscook Community Learning Center, although it calls itself a community learning center, has deep roots in the folk school movement. It is described in detail in chapter 4.
Research on Success and Sustainability in Grassroots Education Initiatives
Success and sustainability were defined in chapter 1. To summarize, success is defined contextually by the participants at each case study site, particularly through statements of mission and goals. Sustainability for grassroots initiatives is defined as how initiatives are designed to endure over time and to grow and strengthen interconnections with people and the environment. The following discussion will focus on theory and research that address success and sustainability in projects with similarities to grassroots education. By definition, grassroots education initiatives are projects that are initiated by groups of local people who have come together around a shared educational purpose. The people come from a wide variety of backgrounds, not necessarily education, and they convene initially outside of an organizational framework. This creates a circumstance with features that are common to community organizing and development, in addition to education. Due to the local and informal nature of grassroots initiatives outside of the existing educational framework, the academic research specifically on grassroots initiatives is limited (Belenky, personal communication; March 26, 2007, personal correspondence; Miller, personal communication, March 2, 2007).
The three bodies of research examined in this section provide insights into key elements of success and sustainability in rural, grassroots education projects: a) research on innovative schools, b) research in the areas of community organizing and community development, and c) research on rural education projects. Research and theory in each of these three areas is summarized, and themes that are common across areas are presented. In summarizing the research, I selected themes that appear to be generalizable rather than specific to a particular context. For example, Raywid (1994), in summarizing the success of alternative schools, discussed the buildings in which specific programs are housed as a factor in innovative school success. This is not generalizable to broader contexts such as grassroots projects, and so is not included.
Innovative Schools
Hundt (2004) conducted a master’s research project at the University of Chicago on alternative education in a small, rural community in Wisconsin. He examined the formation and success or failure of six community-based education initiatives over a 25-year period. He found a number of common features in the schools that have endured over time. He identified the following: meaningful ties among the families involved; provision of flexible funding arrangements; family involvement in the formation and life of the school; a strong sense of collective ownership; choice of a familiar organizational model for the school, which allowed for easier acceptance and integration in the local community; and a limited reliance on organizations outside of the community.
Raywid (1994) of Hofstra University identified key features of successful alternative schools. These included features such as: small in size, although she didn’t define small; designed by those who would be involved; students and families chose the school; continuity in leadership; developing and sustaining community within the school or program; and an emphasis on making learning engaging.
Hoskins (2005), a regional educational facility planner, also described key components in the success of alternative learning environments. She found that success is attributed to: involving all the stakeholders in vision-based planning; establishing community alliances; building on local resources; viewing long-term community health as a central consideration; and collectively creating a vision for learning. Hoskins summarized the value of incorporating these key elements, saying that what results is “fertile learning environments that simultaneously enrich the surrounding area” (p. 41).
Meier (2000) and Schlechty (2001) are both long-time education advocates who have articulated features central to the success of innovative schooling based on decades of experience in educational reform. Meier identified three features that are central to the success of innovative schools. She has called these “the magic three” (p. 184). They include: a) small in size, which she defined as small enough for faculty to sit around a table together, for the school and the families to easily collaborate in person, and for everyone in the school to be known; b) self-governing; and c) choice, families have a choice about their participation. Schlechty (2001), who has been involved in educational reform for over 40 years, emphasized that central to educational innovation is developing clarity and some degree of consensus about the purpose and mission of an educational project.
Tyack, in his seminal work, The One Best System (1974), concluded his exhaustive study of the history of schooling in America with recommendations for innovative learning environments. He proposed that successful learning environments include: power and decision-making shared among all the stakeholders; an alignment between teaching and learning styles; a commitment to social justice; and attention to the relevance of ethnic and cultural differences.
Community Organizing and Community Development
Community organizing emerged in the U.S. after WW II. The term refers to building community organizations and advocating for some aspect of social change (Sen, 2003). Community organizing, according to Sen, includes at least these elements: clear mission and goals, a membership and leadership structure, a plan for community outreach, issue campaigns, and a goal of effecting institutional change. Sen also emphasized that in order for an organization to accomplish long-term change, it is necessary that the organization operate with a guiding theory of how change is effected.
Community development, a related term, is focused on identifying and building on community assets (Biddle & Biddle, 1965; Kretzman & Mc Knight, 2007). Those who are involved in community development projects identify and build on the assets and strengths of communities for the purpose of serving the needs of the community. A goal of community development is to empower individual and community groups to create change in their own communities. It is described by Biddle and Biddle as “essentially human development” (p. 259). As a movement, it had its origins in rural areas (Biddle & Biddle).
A number of authors have had a lifetime of involvement in the field of building community organizations, and their work is cited regularly by other scholars. Highlander Research and Education Center has been involved in grassroots organizing for social change for almost 80 years, and their resources and research are invaluable to organizers (de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002). Three of the authors discussed here have been involved with work at Highlander, and Highlander strongly recommends their work to organizers: Lewis, Sen, and Brown.
Lewis was an educator and researcher at Highlander for many years. Out of her teaching, research, and experiences with communities, she developed what she called 12 Steps for Development in Communities and a Guide for Developing Learning Communities at all Educational Levels (de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002). Her focus was on pedagogy that builds skills for participatory democracy. Her steps are particularly applicable to grassroots education initiatives because they acknowledge both a community development component and an educational component. Here are Lewis’ 12 steps, as summarized by de los Reyes and Gozemba:
1) Understand and share local history.
2) Mobilize/organize/revive community.
3) Profile and access the local community.
4) Analyze and envision alternatives.
5) Educate the community.
6) Build confidence and pride.
7) Develop local projects.
8) Strengthen the organization through shared leadership.
9) Collaborate and build coalitions.
10) Take political power.
11) Initiate economic activity.
12) Enter the local/regional/national/international planning process (p. 208).
Brown (2006) has over 30 years of experience in building community organizations and has trained hundreds of people around the world. Foundational to his work is a recognition of the importance of understanding group dynamics. Drawing on the work of Lewin (1948), he emphasized that groups must be seen as unique entities, more than the sum of their members. Groups have a distinct development process and their own rules for growth and health. He defined a powerful organization as one that can be sustained over time, and whose work has an influence over the long-term. The key aspects of building successful organizations, according to Brown, are: strong relationships that are based on trust, morale, and community-building; attention given equally to mission, goals, structure, and funding; development of leaders within the organization; knowledge of the local community; an understanding of how groups work and why people join groups; and solid internal management.
Schorr is the director of the Harvard University Project on Effective Intervention and is a member of the Executive Committee of the Aspen Institute’s Roundtable on Community Change. Based on years of experience and research, Schorr (1998) identified seven attributes of highly effective programs. Successful programs are: comprehensive, responsive, and flexible; see children in the context of their families; recognize that community-based means not only where a program is located, but that it is developed and run by the community; evolve over time and have a clear, long-term mission; are well managed by competent and committed individuals; have staff who are well trained and well supported to provide responsive services; and are designed to build relationships of trust and respect.
Schorr (1998) also identified key components in community rebuilding that have particular applicability to the rural context and rural renewal. Parson (1999), involved with the development of community learning centers, has drawn on the work of Schorr, particularly where community renewal or rebuilding is needed. Successful community renewal initiatives: combine activity in several areas—economic service, education, and community building; build on a community’s resources and strengths; make use of outside resources and partnerships; and are based on one or more theories of change.
Schaefer and Voors (1996) have long professional histories in working in organizational and community development. In their book, Vision in Action, they put their many years of organizational background to work on the questions of: How can we foster the development of healthy, small organizations? How can initiatives such as community projects, schools, and businesses be well-founded? These questions relate directly to success and sustainability in grassroots education initiatives. Schaefer and Voors proposed that every initiative needs to “nurture seven basic aspects” (p. 60). These include: developing a clear vision, responding to a need, forming direction, building commitment, working together, managing processes and time, and finding facilities and resources. They proposed that initiatives fail for reasons related to these categories and include: loss of enthusiasm and energy, loss of or differences in direction and long-term aims, unrealistic or overly ambitious plans, losing touch with changing circumstances, lack of effort or avoidance of risk, poor communication, lack of clarity about decision-making, internal conflicts, lack of effective planning, poor or inadequate facility and resources, over-extending financially, undercapitalization, and inadequate financial control.
Two sets of author/researchers, Biddle and Biddle (1965) and Pinchot and Pinchot (1996), emphasized the importance of a core initiating group and the development of distinct roles for those who guide the initial phases. Biddle and Biddle referred to this core group as a nucleus, and they defined it as a small voluntary group of concerned citizens willing to give of their time who “are few enough to come to know each other well and trust each other despite disagreements and who are concerned enough about human problems in the area to do something to make life more worthwhile for all their neighbors” (p. 89). Both sets of researchers emphasized the importance of leadership within the core group. Biddle and Biddle said that a leader or facilitator of the core group needs to be an encourager to activate the group process. This person needs to be a skilled listener, hold strong convictions, have a deep faith in the abilities of the group, be able to facilitate without dominating, and see the potential for growth in conflict and disagreements. Pinchot and Pinchot called this visionary leadership. Parson (1999), advocate of community learning centers, recognized that although the Biddles did their research in the 1960s, he has found their work to be valid and applicable to the development of innovative educational projects such as community learning centers.
Giles and Hargreaves (2006) observed that developers of innovative contexts frequently experience pressure to revert to more traditional forms. This corroborates the research findings of Tye (2000) on the difficulty of reformers to sustain efforts within an existing infrastructure. Although they encouraged further research, their study of innovative school projects indicated that the model of the learning organization and the professional learning community may be a more sustainable approach that is more resilient and less likely to “default to conventional patterns” (p. 124).
Senge and Scharmer (2001), who have been involved with many action research projects over the years and with the development of the Society for Organizational Learning, pointed out that a clearly articulated and consistent mission and purpose are the foundation for the development of successful and sustainable organizations. Their approach to creating learning communities in any organization emphasizes a systems approach. A key component of this is that organizations are most successful when they develop and operate in harmony with human nature and the natural world.
Former director of the National Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Marshall (1997), spoke of the creation of “dynamically sustainable learning communities” (p. 177). She emphasized that new organizational forms and new visions of leadership are needed. Drawing on the work of Wheatley (1999), she stressed an approach that involves an understanding of human learning systems as dynamic and designed to grow and change.
Rural Education Research
B. Miller (1995) presented conclusions of 5 years of research at the Northwest Regional Laboratory in which he examined rural education programs that built strong community-school partnerships. The conclusions of the research particularly identified attributes for successful implementation and long-term sustainability of rural school and community collaborations. Grassroots education initiatives, by definition, involve an integration of school and community strengths and resources. Miller’s research provided valuable insights into success and sustainability. His lengthy list included findings such as: develop broad-based support and stakeholder involvement in every phase; develop a shared vision with all stakeholders; utilize a structured process to build a vision, identify strengths and needs, set goals, and create action plans; emphasize group process and team building; and develop local leadership.
The Asset-Based Community Development Institute at Northwestern University in Illinois (2006) has been involved in sustainable rural development. They have approached community development through an emphasis on community assets, rather than focusing on community problems or issues to be solved. Researchers Kretzman and McKnight (1993, 2007) identified these key resources in sustainable rural development: skills of local residents; the power of local associations and collaborations; the resources of public, private, and nonprofit institutions; and the physical and economic resources of local places. Effective community development is built from understanding and utilizing a community’s strengths and assets. They emphasized that “healthy schools and healthy communities reinforce each other” (1993, p. 209).
Summary of the Research Literature
Across this diversity of perspectives on success and sustainability in innovative schools, community organizing and development projects, and rural education, common themes emerge that can be useful in analyzing success and sustainability in grassroots education initiatives. It is interesting to note that over half of the authors spoke only about success and did not mention sustainability. Four of the authors were focused primarily on sustainability, and four of the authors addressed both success and sustainability. The following elements are cited by more than one author as being critical to building successful and/or sustainable programs, organizations, or schools:
• Initiation, design, and on-going decision-making shared by local stakeholders (Hoskins, 2005; Hundt, 2004; Raywid, 1994; Schorr, 1997; Tyack, 1974).
• Local strengths and resources are identified and built upon (Brown, 2006; Hoskins; Kretzman & McKnight, 1993; Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; B. Miller, 1995; Schorr, 1997).
• A collective vision is developed (Brown, 2006; Hoskins, 2005; Hundt, 2004; Marshall, 1997; B. Miller, 1995; Schaefer & Voors, 1996; Schlechty, 2001; Schorr, 1997; Senge, 1990).
• Long-term community health is a primary focus (Hoskins, 2005; Kretzman & McKnight, 1993).
• All members have a choice about participation (B. Miller, 1995; Raywid, 1994).
• Group process and team effort are emphasized (Biddle & Biddle, 1965; Brown, 2006; Marshall, 1997; B. Miller, 1995).
• The project is small (Meier, 2000; Raywid, 1994).
• A sense of collective ownership is broadly experienced (Brown, 2006; Hundt, 2004).
• Competent, committed, and consistent leadership with clearly identifiable skills inspires others with the vision (Brown, 2006; Raywid, 1994).
• Local leadership is developed (Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002;
B. Miller, 1995; Sen, 2003).
• Community alliances are established (Hoskins, 2005; Kretzman & Mc Knight, 1993; Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; B. Miller, 1995).
• Relationships and a sense of community are developed within the organization (Hundt, 2004; Marshall, 1997; B. Miller, 1995; Raywid, 1994; Schaefer & Voors, 1996).
• Education, service, community building, and economic activity are combined (Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; Schorr, 1997).
• One or more theories of change informs the work of the organization (Brown, 2006 Brown, 2006; Schorr, 1997).
• Systems thinking and application of systems concepts are used in the development of the organization (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Marshall, 1997; Senge & Scharmer, 2001).
• Harmony with human nature and the natural world is a core value (Marshall, 1997; Senge & Scharmer, 2001).
• A commitment to social justice is central in the life and decision-making of the organization (Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; Tyack, 1974).
• A core organizational group shaped the organization (Biddle & Biddle, 1964; Hundt, 2004).
• Those involved in the organization strive to make learning engaging (Raywid, 1994; Tyack, 1974).
• The organization is designed to be responsive and flexible and to grow and change (Marshall, 1997; Senge, 1990).
This list of qualities of successful and/or sustainable organizations, schools or projects was drawn from the fields of community organizing, community development, alternative schools, and rural schools. Many of these researchers addressed primarily success (Biddle & Biddle, 1965; Hoskins, 2005; Hundt, 2004; Meier, 2000; Parson, 1999; Pinchot & Pinchot, 1996; Schlechty, 2001; Schorr, 1998; Tyack, 1974). Several of the studies or authors addressed both (Brown, 2006; Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; Marshall, 1997; B. Miller, 1995; Schaefer & Voors, 1996; Senge & Scharmer, 2001). This body of research does not include grassroots education initiatives. Research on grassroots education initiatives is needed in order to understand how they are serving communities and how their efforts can be strengthened and sustained. This dissertation research addressed both success and sustainability in rural grassroots education initiatives.
Chapter Summary
An emerging systemic or ecological worldview and the radically changing nature of society and the world, along with social and ecological crises, are indicators that change in education is imperative. The current system is a product of the industrial age, and the infrastructure of the system is so deeply rooted and informed by the mechanistic paradigm that the chance for educational innovations to flourish is limited (Tye, 2000). The current shift of educational control away from communities and to the federal government, along with the narrow focus on standards and testing, are exacerbating the weaknesses of the system and minimizing the opportunities for change. Grassroots education initiatives such as folk schools, learning centers, learning cooperatives, innovative independent schools, and homeschooling have emerged as a result of challenges in the broader educational context.
People at the grassroots are responding to concerns about fundamental qualities of the modern age such as mechanistic thinking and schooling organized for factory production and in isolation from local community and from daily life. They raise questions about what education is for, how it is approached, and what it means to educate for ecological sustainability and social justice. Growing out of a variety of philosophical, educational, cultural, scientific, or moral motivations is a movement to re-create how and where people learn, and how children and young people are introduced into society. The nine lenses in this chapter presented reasons or catalysts for the emergence of these initiatives.
In the creation of grassroots education initiatives, people have drawn inspiration from historical and present day individuals and models. These inspirations include folk education, the pedagogy of Freire (2000), the “homeplace” concept of Belenky et al. (1997), indigenous approaches, and holistic, experiential, and alternative education. Those who are involved in grassroots education initiatives strive to make them: democratic, publicly accessible, place-based, dynamic, holistic, interdisciplinary, intergenerational, experiential, and collaborative. Typically, these initiatives are also places where culture, dialogue, relationship and lifelong learning are central.
In rural areas, grassroots education initiatives are one response to peoples’ desire for alternative educational forms, as well as their desire to address a variety of rural issues. Particularly in rural communities that are threatened with or have experienced consolidation, learning centers, folk schools, and other grassroots education initiatives have the ability to serve as educational and cultural centers for community life. Grassroots education initiatives operate from a belief that community and educational issues are interwoven. Educational projects that build on the strengths of rural areas have much to offer individuals and communities.
Although ample research is available on community development projects and alternative schools, scholars and practitioners have noted that research on grassroots education initiatives does not exist and is needed to examine how such initiatives are successfully serving communities and education, as well as how they are able to sustain their efforts (Belenky, personal communication, March 26, 2007; Firth, personal communication, February 12, 2007; R. Miller, personal communication, March 2, 2007; Spicer, personal communication, March 11, 2007). Rural areas, in particular, are in a position to benefit from research on such initiatives.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In this dissertation, I examined grassroots education initiatives in rural areas focusing on the following questions:
• What are the key elements that create success in grassroots education initiatives?
• What features or activities support the sustainability of success in grassroots education initiatives?
These questions are addressed through case studies that made use of interviews, observations, and documentary evidence. This chapter focuses on methodology. It begins with an overview of action research, of appreciative inquiry, and of case study methods, since these are the theoretical and methodological foundations for the research. The chapter continues with a description of the research sites, the research participants, the data collection procedures, and the data analysis procedures. The chapter closes with an examination of the limitations of the research methods.
Theoretical and Methodological Foundation
Action Research
Reason and Bradbury (2001) defined action research as “a whole family of approaches to inquiry” (p. xxiv) . . . . that include a “participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory world view” (p. 1). Action researchers focus on solving practical problems and improving practice while creating new knowledge (Babbie, 1998). Action research is different from traditional research in that it is based on different purposes, in different ways of knowing, and on different types of relationships. Many writers find the origins of action research in the research of Lewin in the 1940s, especially as applied to social and organizational change. Lewin was the first to use the term action research (Lewin, 1948). The roots of action research can also be found in the critique of positivist science and in the practices of those working for the liberation of oppressed peoples around the world (Reason & Bradbury). Action research builds its theoretical foundation from an eclectic variety of fields of thought, including critical thinking, pragmatic philosophy, liberationist thought, humanistic and transpersonal psychology, constructionist theory, systems thinking, and complexity theory.
Reason and Bradbury (2001) included a participatory worldview as a foundational aspect in their definition of action research. In a participatory worldview, people have the right and the ability to be directly involved in decisions that affect them, and this leads to connections between knowledge and power. A participatory worldview was described by Reason and Bradbury as “part of the current shift from a ‘modern’ to ‘a postmodern’ world . . . . and these purposes undercut the foundations of the empirical-positivist worldview that has been the foundation of Western inquiry since the Enlightenment” (p. 4). Western research has been a reflection of a worldview where science and scientists are separate from daily life, knowledge is approached as rational and objective, and an absolute truth can be known. Authors such as Borda (2001), Eikeland (2001), Flood (2001), Park (2001), and Senge and Scharmer (2001) have argued for people to envision a worldview that offers a different understanding of reality, of how knowledge is created, and of how the future is imagined. A postmodern perspective, discussed in chapter 2 of this dissertation, is one of the underlying beliefs and catalysts for grassroots education.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a particular form of action research. Fals Borda (2001) is credited with first using the term, Participatory Action Research (Hall, 2001). Hall beautifully summed up what PAR is: “It (PAR) is about whose knowledge counts, creating information for social change, recognizing indigenous and ancient knowledges and learning to be allies” (p. 174). It began as a challenge to traditional university-based research. Although PAR includes a variety of approaches, the uniting belief is that democratic participation in the creating of knowledge is central to redefining power relationships and guiding effective action. PAR, more than other forms of action research, blurs the distinction between the researcher and those being studied. It emphasizes the role of researcher as a mentor to those in the research. Participants define the issue or problem, identify desired strategies, and take the lead in designing the research.
A number of features of action research were central to the purposes of this dissertation. Action research: brings together reflection and action as well as theory and practice; develops practical knowing; offers practical solutions to individual and community issues; contributes to democratic social change; strengthens communities; builds transformative potential through critical awareness; and has the potential to lead to “repatterned institutional infrastructures” (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 453). Greenwood and Levin (1998) also emphasized that action researchers strive to produce knowledge for the purpose of informing and promoting social change.
Action research typically consists of four main phases: information gathering, planning, implementation, and evaluation. This study was not purely action research or participatory action research because I did not involve the participants in designing and carrying out the research; however, this research is action-oriented and contains elements of both action research and participatory action research. I designed it to produce practical information that can inform and promote educational and social change efforts at the grassroots in small rural communities. Two key questions from Action Research guided this dissertation: Is the research guided by concerns for practical outcomes? Can the research energize and empower participants and social change? This research can serve as the information gathering phase that creates the foundation for later action research or participatory action research at various sites. Leaders, as well as individual members, at all three sites requested the results of the findings. In addition, Driftless Folk School, a 2-year-old initiative in my local community, has requested a presentation of the results of this research.
Appreciative Inquiry
Appreciative inquiry originated in the field of organizational development. The primary originator was David Cooperrider of Case Western University. He has asked researchers to pay attention to “the best of the past and the present” in order to “ignite the collective imagination of what might be” (Appreciative Inquiry website, para. 2). Ludema, Cooperrider, and Barrett (2001) saw appreciative inquiry as a form of action research that “focuses attention toward the most life-giving, life-sustaining aspects of organizational existence” (p. 189). The central assumption of appreciative inquiry is that organizational change can be addressed through identifying what is working and concentrating efforts in that direction. When an organization does this, it builds the potential to amplify strengths and diminish the power of deficiencies and weaknesses. This is in contrast to traditional approaches where a researcher looks for a problem and seeks to find a solution. Key elements of appreciative inquiry include examining group assumptions, acknowledging the existence of multiple realities at any time, valuing differences, being aware of how the use of language creates reality, being sensitive to the use of a “language of deficit” (Hammond, 1998, p. 25), and accepting mystery.
Appreciative inquiry shares some practices with Action Research (Ludema et al., 2001). It is a process that is carried out by the people who are involved and affected. Both approaches make use of story, history, and tradition as sources of information for directing the process. Appreciative inquiry theorists have raised a concern that action research often promotes a view of the world and an approach to research that is problem-focused. They have posited that if researchers focus heavily on what is wrong with organizations and communities, their ability to see what works and gives life to organizations is greatly diminished. This is seen as part of the mechanistic paradigm in which people view much of reality as a machine that can be fixed when broken.
This dissertation was appreciative in the initial research question: What are the key elements in the success and sustainability of grassroots education projects? It focused primarily on the positive aspects that have supported the school or project for the long haul. The dissertation included a discussion of what was learned from mistakes; however, the primary focus was on common features and patterns that have contributed to success and sustainability. From that understanding, a working theory about success and sustainability in grassroots educational projects has been created.
Case Study Methods
Great variety of opinion exists about what a case study is and how this form of research is conducted (Merriam, 1998). A case study can be defined in three ways: by the process of carrying out the research; by the unit of study, “the bounded system or case” (Merriam, p. 27); or by the final product. Two definitions of case study are generally identified: “a study of a bounded system, and the study of an instance in action” (Bassey, 1999). Merriam stressed that a case must be “intrinsically bounded” (p. 27), meaning that clear boundaries exist that allow one to see the case as an identifiable unit. Miles and Huberman (1994) also have spoken of a case in this way. Stake (1995) described the case as “an integrated system” (p. 2). Yin (2003) stressed that a case study is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context”(p. 1). According to Gillham (2000), a case is “a unit of human activity” (p. 1) that is identified in its real-life context and exists in the present. Across the variety of descriptions, key elements of case study emerge. Case studies are a comprehensive research strategy, not just a method of data collection or research design; case study research relies on multiple sources of information, triangulation is central; and a theoretical position often guides data collection and analysis (Yin, 2003).
Case studies have been used in the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, history, economics, education, and social work. Case studies can be either qualitative or quantitative and can utilize a variety of data collection methods. They are often used to inform decisions and improve action (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). Researchers using a case study methodology can study individuals, organizations, schools, institutions, partnerships, communities, relationships, decisions, or projects (Gillham, 2000; Yin, 2003). Qualitative case studies have been especially used in education in the last 35 years (Merriam, 1998). Case studies have been a preferred method in education for examining educational innovations, excellence in high schools, and uses of evaluation findings.
A qualitative case study can be defined in three ways: by the process of carrying out the research; by the unit of study, “the bounded system or case” (Merriam, p. 27); or by the final product. Merriam defined the product of case study research as “an intensive, holistic, description and analysis of a single entity, phenomenon, or social unity” (p. 34). In this research, the case was a school site. A case study approach was chosen for this research because:
• Case studies are ideal for defining a topic or phenomenon broadly and to cover contextual conditions (Yin, 1993).
• Case studies are useful in providing information about areas of education where research is limited (Merriam).
• Case studies are ideal for presenting “a holistic and dynamically rich account of an educational program” (Merriam, p. 39).
• Case studies are especially useful for studying educational innovations (Yin, 1993).
• Case studies are better able to examine social change than positivistic designs (Collins & Noblit, 1978).
Case Study Sites
This research involved a comprehensive case study of three rural, grassroots education initiatives. Locating appropriate sites across the country was accomplished through questioning professors, teachers, administrators, and organizational leaders and by pursuing site references in books and on organizational websites. One site reference often led to a chain of other possibilities to pursue.
The definition of grassroots initiatives and an understanding of postmodern perspectives in education shaped the criteria for site selection. The following criteria guided the selection of school and program sites: located in a rural area; initiated from within the community; striving to be accessible to all; have a history of at least 9 years; based on democratic processes; support cultural and intergenerational learning; encourage collaboration and place-based experiences; and do not require accountability to government education standards that are incompatible with community education goals. The minimum age of the initiatives selected for this study was based on the age of CCLC. I would have preferred a minimum of a 10-year history, but that would have eliminated this slightly younger organization that had so much to offer this research. In order to increase the likelihood of identifying generalizable features of success and sustainability, sites were selected to include a diversity of cultural communities and geographical locations, as well as variety in the types of projects. Brief site descriptions are included here. More detailed descriptions are in chapter 4, along with tables that compare the demographics and infrastructure of the three sites.
Youth Initiative High School
Youth Initiative High School (YIHS) in Viroqua, Wisconsin is located in the rural county where I live and work. It is a private high school that is inspired by the Waldorf model, which will be described further in chapter 4. As a researcher, I was attracted to Youth Initiative High School as a potential research site because I had been impressed with the myriad of ways in which school members interfaced with the local community and the enthusiasm and creativity of the students. In addition, I was intrigued by the name of the school, “Youth Initiative.”
YIHS served as the pilot site for my research since it was local, and I had an initial connection there. As the pilot project progressed, I found that what I was learning was also an excellent match for the purposes of my dissertation. The scope of the research at YIHS expanded when it became a dissertation site through the addition of a few more interviews and documentary evidence.
Cobscook Community Learning Center
Cobscook Community Learning Center (CCLC) near Lubec, Maine began in 1999 as a community research project. Those involved with CCLC have described it as a “community homeplace.” They build their work on the philosophies of popular, folk, indigenous, and experiential education. They are committed to serving the Cobscook Bay region as people seek “social, economic, cultural, ecological, personal, and family empowerment” (CCLC website, Values, para. 1).
This site was selected because I was fascinated by the comprehensive approach of the learning center, by the degree to which they have diverged from the traditional model of education, and by their ability to create such a place in an isolated and impoverished rural community. I learned about CCLC through the website of the Institute for People’s Education (IPEA), which I had made use of during a study of folk schools. The director of CCLC serves on the board of IPEA.
Headwaters School
Headwaters School is a community of students, teachers, parents, and others who live in the Ozark Mountains of northwest Arkansas near the tiny village of Red Star. Homeschoolers, preschoolers, public school students, and their families and friends participate in multi-age school and community activities. The school and learning center draw families from a 100-mile radius.
I became aware of Headwaters School through a colleague who has friends in that area. I was intrigued by the longevity and the evolution of the school, and I also wanted to bring to the study the perspective of those living in a different geographic area of the country with a unique set of issues.
Participants
The participants in this research included the groups of people who worked at or participated at each research site. This included teachers, students, parents, administrators, board members, and community members. Participants were invited to participate through a letter of invitation, a phone call, a personal contact, or an email. Their participation was voluntary.
At YIHS, the case study included: nine interviews with faculty, parents, board members, community members, alumni, and administration; attendance at two visioning meetings of the school community held in June; a tour of the school, and observation time. As a community member, I have also observed YIHS students over the years at a variety of events sponsored by them.
At Cobscook Community Learning Center, the case study included: 19 interviews with teachers, adult students, administrators, volunteers, board members, and community members; attendance at a board meeting; observation of classes and activities; and a tour of the facility and grounds.
At Headwaters, the case study included: 10 interviews with teachers, board members, former students, and community members. Six interviews took place at the school, and four took place in people’s homes. I attended the fall board meeting and a potluck event to kick off the school year and had time to observe the facility and the activities that take place there. I also viewed a DVD about the school that was made in 2006 by an Arkansas film maker.
Data Collection Procedures
The study was triangulated through a combination of interviews, observations, and analysis of documents. This allowed for a certain amount of cross-checking and validation of findings. The qualitative data included quotations from those interviewed, detailed descriptions acquired through observations of the site and the people involved, and information from various documents.
Observation
Observations provided the opportunity to see and experience things first hand at each research site and to observe things that may have become routine for the participants. It also provided a reference point for questions in the interviews (Merriam, 1998). The validity of observations was enhanced through observing carefully and systematically, writing descriptively, and recording field notes systematically.
Documents
Documents can provide a large amount of easily accessible information. They are considered a “nonreactive measure” because the researcher does not affect the content (Merriam, 1998, p. 126). Documents acquired at each site included written and visual material including: public records with information about enrollment, demographics, growth, budget, or fund-raising; correspondence; school brochures or catalogs; grant applications, by-laws and photographs. The authenticity and accuracy of each document was assessed through consideration of questions such as: “What is the history of the document? Is the document complete? Has it been edited? For what purposes was it produced? Who was the author? For whom was the document intended? What were the maker’s sources of information? What was the maker’s bias? Is it a primary source or a secondary source?” (Merriam, pp. 121, 122). When possible, copies of documents were obtained.
Interviews
The qualitative interview has become an alternative to the standardized interviewing approach of positivism (Warren, 2002). Qualitative interviews are more exploratory and collaborative than a standardized interview. The qualitative interview is designed not so much for gathering facts as for creating meaningful understanding and interpretation around a topic (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). In a qualitative interview, the researcher cannot plan or control each aspect of the process, but allows it to unfold in the dynamic with the interviewee (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Questions may be redesigned throughout the process in response to what the interviewer learns. Particular information may indicate a new line of questioning or other people to interview.
Interviews were the primary source of data in this research. I collected teacher, student, administrator, board member, and community member perceptions through qualitative interviews that lasted ½ an hour to 1¼ hours. The qualitative interview was the ideal choice for this research topic because: it provided for the exploration of attitudes, motivations, and accounts of events; it allowed for a vicarious understanding of experiences and events for which I was not present; it involved a relationship in which people were encouraged to describe their world, their experiences, and their thoughts and beliefs in their own words; it allowed for more complex questions and the clarification and expansion of questions; and it allowed greater detail in the context of fewer people (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). I did find, as indicated by Rubin and Rubin (1995) in the previous paragraph, that a certain amount of “unfolding” of the interview and redesigning of questions as I went along was necessary in the unique context of each interview. For example, at CCLC, I found that some of my interviewees naturally expressed themselves through story-telling rather than in short, concise answers to my questions. In several cases, when I asked the lead-in question, “Tell me how you got involved here,” people began with their childhood. In one case, the interviewee began by telling me about his grandfather’s life.
Qualitative interviews may be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The interviews in this research were of the semi-structured type. Semi-structured interviews have qualities of both structured and unstructured interviews (Arksey & Knight, 1999). A question guide that included a mix of closed and open questions was used. The interview was partly interviewer-led and partly led by the interviewee. As an interviewer, I was called on to strengthen my inner radar in my relationships with people and rely on the inner abilities of listening, patience, and heightened awareness, as well as the ability to make connections and follow my instincts.
I created interview questions for two categories of interviewees. The first category was made up of administrators, teachers, and board members and included questions such as: How does the school/project define success? How are decisions made that impact the school/project? Reflecting on your years of experience, what do you consider the key elements in the success of this school/project? The other category of interviewees included adult students or alumni, parents, community members, and representatives of affiliated organizations. The questions for this group had a slightly different focus and included questions such as: What attracted you to this school/project? Why was this initiative needed? In what ways are students, parents, and community members involved in decision-making? The full list of interview questions is in Appendix A.
I took notes during all interviews, and I audiotaped and transcribed all interviews. Taping ensured the accuracy of quotes and in-depth or detailed accounts. Poland (2002) identified the following challenges to transcribing spoken language into text: people speak in run-on sentences, and the transcriptionist must make decisions about where to begin and end sentences and where commas are appropriate; omissions of text can occur from going forward and backward on a tape during transcription, the transcriptionist may not pick up at exactly the same place each time, and words may be left out; transcription errors may occur in mistaking a word for a similar sounding word; and many aspects of communication do not translate well into text, such as body language, use of personal space, pacing of speech and length of silence, varieties in volume, pitch, and quality of voice, facial expressions, eye gazes, nods, smiles, frowns, the physical setting, etc. I took these challenges into consideration in the transcription of all interviews. I took brief notes during the interviews to enhance understanding of the transcript, such as comments about body language or the physical environment of the interview.
Poland (2002) recommended several strategies to maximize transcription quality that were implemented during this research. I gave attention to recording quality for clarity of hearing what was said, and I gave attention to the following questions that assisted in improving transcription quality (Kvale, 1996; Poland, 2002):
• Should the conversation be transcribed verbatim, including repetitions, extraneous comments, or unnecessary information?
• Should pauses, emphases in intonation, and emotional expressions like laughter and sighing be included?
• Is the exact wording to be transcribed, or also the spirit of the exchange?
• Where does a sentence end?
• How long is a silence before it becomes a pause?
• Does a specific pause belong to the subject or the interviewer?
I transcribed most of every interview, although not necessarily repetitions and extraneous comments, although in some situations, I made parenthetical reference to such information. I also recorded emphasis or intonation and emotional responses, as well as the spirit of the exchange. In some cases, when a long personal story was part of the interview and the content did not directly relate to the question, I included a summary of the spirit of the exchange, rather than a verbatim transcription. I saved all recordings in digital files so that I could still reference any portion of an interview, if needed.
Data Analysis
In qualitative research, data analysis begins as a simultaneous and interactive process during data collection (Kvale, 1996; Merriam, 1998). During this research, data analysis began with the first contact with someone at each site. New information, insights, and tentative hypotheses influenced subsequent questioning and observations. It was a continuous process of adjusting and refining as the experience at each site unfolded.
In qualitative interviews, each interviewee provides a great deal of information. As a result, the sample size is much smaller than in a quantitative study. Kvale (1996) stressed that the primary motivation in the analysis of qualitative interviews is, “How do I analyze what my interviewees told me in order to enrich and deepen the meaning of what they said?” (p. 183). Because the responses are longer and more detailed, they do not lend themselves to quantitative analysis. The findings in this research are presented through description and quotations.
Data from this study were analyzed with the purpose of generating common themes related to the success and sustainability of grassroots education initiatives. The most common form of qualitative analysis is coding. Coding links what the respondent says to concepts or categories related to the research purposes. The codes are symbols that assist the researcher in organizing and analyzing data (Robson, 1993). The primary purpose of coding was to simplify a variety of responses into smaller groups with similar content. Coding was followed by sorting, local integration, and inclusive integration (Robson). During sorting, similarly coded interview excerpts were collected into files. Local integration allowed for organizing within a particular file. Finally, during inclusive integration, consistent ideas or themes that emerged across files were identified. Inclusive integration led ultimately to general conclusions. The computer software, ATLAS.ti, assisted in data analysis.
Researcher Bias
In qualitative research, the role of the researcher as the primary tool for the collection of data “necessitates the identification of personal values, assumptions, and biases” (Creswell, 2003, p. 200). For this reason, it is important that I state the background that I brought to the research. My perceptions of grassroots education initiatives have been shaped by my personal experience as an educator for 28 years in both public and private settings. My first introduction to such initiatives was in the 1980s when I volunteered in a Freire-based literacy project in El Salvador. A few years later, I served as an advisor and then on the board of a small community-based independent school in rural, Washington state. More recently, I have served on the boards of a homeschool cooperative and a folk school. Over the years, I have observed a number of initiatives struggle or fail at various stages in their development. These experiences brought a certain perspective or bias to the study.
Although I have made every effort to be objective throughout the study, these biases may have influenced the way I collected and understood the data. I began this study with the perspective that grassroots education initiatives have inherent challenges that must be worked with if they are to accomplish their goals and serve the community well over time. Some initiatives successfully build energy and support among participants and the community, as well as build strong infrastructure. These initiatives are able to come through challenges strengthened as an organization. Other initiatives get bogged down, often in the early years, by a lack of resources and positive support. This perspective led to the formulation of the research question, “What are the key elements in the success and sustainability of grassroots education initiatives?”
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
Delimitations are those limitations on the research design that I imposed deliberately. This included limiting the research to three sites, the choice of the particular sites, and the number of participants I chose to interview at each site. These delimitations restrict the population to which the study can be generalized. Limitations are restrictions over which I have no control. The limitations of the research included the following:
• Coding inevitably resulted in some loss of information (Robson, 1993).
• Although in-depth description and analysis at each site are desirable, constraints of time and money imposed some limitations (Merriam, 1998).
• At each site, many more people could have been interviewed to provide a broader perspective, but time and logistical restraints at the sites placed certain limits on the number of interviewees.
• “Case studies can oversimplify or exaggerate a situation, which can lead to invalid conclusions” (Merriam, p. 41).
• Case studies are limited by the skill and integrity of the researcher (Merriam). I am a student researcher just developing my skills as a researcher and as an interviewer.
• Personal biases of the researcher and the participants can impact the research and its interpretation both positively and negatively. Personal bias can overshadow other information and perspectives. This personal perspective can also bring more depth and authenticity to the research.
At two of the three sites, CCLC and Headwaters, I was a complete stranger to everyone there. This could have had the effect of inhibiting people’s comfort and level of disclosure in the interviews. On the other hand, it might have provided a certain degree of anonymity that could make disclosure easier. At CCLC, people willingly and eagerly told me long, personal stories, full of detail. At Headwaters, this was less true, and some of the interviews were shorter or less detailed. This may just have been the personalities of these interviewees, or it may have indicated a lack of trust or a reluctance to share.
At Headwaters, because people live as much as 60 miles from the school, and often in remote locations accessed only by rough, mountainous roads, I was advised to schedule my visit during their fall kick-off event and potluck. This made for a number of interviews back-to-back in 1 day without reflection time in between. I was able to interview 4 people in their homes the day before and the day after the event, and this provided a certain balance.
Summary
This chapter included the methodological and theoretical foundations of this research. These are action research, appreciative inquiry, and case study methods. Action researchers focus on solving practical problems and improving practice while creating new knowledge for the purpose of informing and promoting social change (Babbie, 1998; Greenwood & Levin, 1998). This study was not purely action research because I did not involve the participants in designing and carrying out the research; however, this research was action-oriented. I designed it to produce practical information that can inform and promote educational and social change efforts at the grassroots in small rural communities.
Appreciative inquiry as a form of action research addresses organizational change by identifying what is working well and concentrating efforts in that direction (Ludema et al., 2001). This dissertation was appreciative in the initial research question: What are the key elements in the success and sustainability of grassroots education projects? The research focused primarily on the positive aspects that have supported the success and sustainability of the schools or projects in the study.
Case studies are a comprehensive research strategy. Case study researchers rely on multiple sources of information, and triangulation is central (Yin, 2003). A case study approach was chosen for this research because case studies are useful in providing information about areas of education where research is limited (Merriam, 1998), they are ideal for presenting a comprehensive and detailed account of an educational program (Merriam), and they are especially useful for studying educational innovations (Yin, 1993).
This research involved a comprehensive case study of three, rural, grassroots education initiatives, which included Youth Initiative High School in Viroqua, Wisconsin; Cobscook Community Learning Center in Lubec, Maine; and Headwaters School in Red Star, Arkansas. The three case study sites were selected based upon several criteria. The initiatives in this study were: located in a rural area; initiated from within the community; striving to be accessible to all; have a history of at least 9 years; based on democratic processes; support cultural and intergenerational learning; encourage collaboration and place-based experiences; and do not require accountability to government education standards that are incompatible with community education goals.
The participants in this research included the groups of people who worked or participated at each research site. The qualitative data was triangulated by including quotations from those interviewed, detailed descriptions acquired through observations of the site and the people involved, and information from various documents.
Interviews were the primary source of data in this research. I collected teacher, student, administrator, board member, and community member perceptions through a total of 38 qualitative interviews. The qualitative interview was the ideal choice for this research topic because: it provided for the exploration of attitudes, motivations, and accounts of events; it allowed for a vicarious understanding of experiences and events for which the researcher was not present; it involved a relationship in which people were encouraged to describe their world, their experience, and their thoughts and beliefs in their own words; it allowed for more complex questions and the clarification and expansion of questions; and it allowed greater detail in the context of fewer people (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). I took notes during all interviews, and audiotaped and transcribed all interviews. Taping ensured the accuracy of quotes and in-depth or detailed accounts.
I analyzed data with the purpose of generating common themes related to the success and sustainability of grassroots education initiatives. The most common form of qualitative analysis is coding, and that was the primary form of analysis used in the research. The computer software, ATLAS.ti, assisted in data analysis.
In chapters 4 and 5, which follow, I present the qualitative data from the research. In chapter 4, I focus on a presentation of the data in order to create a comprehensive picture of each of the research sites. In chapter 5, I focus on comparison and analysis of the data presented in chapter 4.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this dissertation research was to examine community-initiated, rural projects that are creating new visions for education and to understand what makes them successful and sustainable. The research examined grassroots education initiatives in rural areas focusing on the following questions:
• What are the key elements that create success in grassroots education initiatives?
• What features or activities support the sustainability of success in grassroots education initiatives?
Chapters 4 and 5 present qualitative data from the research. Chapter 4 includes a detailed description of each of the three sites drawn from interviews, observations and field notes, and documents. These descriptions include demographics of the area in which each site is located, program and infrastructure of each organization, mission and core values, affective qualities, challenges and crises, and participants’ perspectives on success and sustainability. The overall goal of this chapter is to provide qualitative data in order to create a complete picture of each of the organizations. Chapter 5 focuses on comparison and analysis of the data that is presented in chapter 4.
Qualitative Data Results
The following section contains qualitative data gathered at the three research sites in this study: Youth Initiative High School in Viroqua, Wisconsin; Cobscook Community Learning Center near Lubec, Maine; and Headwaters School near Red Star, Arkansas. At each site, people were interviewed in the following categories: administrators, teachers, board members, current and former students, community members, and initiators of the project—some who are currently involved and some who are not involved at this time. Males and females were interviewed as well as members of cultural groups representative of the area. In the case of CCLC, I traveled to one of the Passamaquoddy reservations in the area to conduct an interview.
Human health is dependent on physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being. Schaefer and Voors (1996) suggested that organizational health is also sustained through the well-being of these domains. Success and sustainability directly relate to organizational health. I chose to organize the large amount of qualitative data from 38 interviews into categories that align with psychological, physical, spiritual, and social well-being. This includes the four domains of:
• Identity—history, mission, facility, program, definition of success, and vision
• Infrastructure of the Organization—leadership and decision-making, job roles, finances, and resources
• Spirit—quality of relationships, values, culture, and mood
• Earth, Community, and Global Connections—connections made to the local environment and community as well as to the broader world.
The information addressed in both Infrastructure and Identity is presented in narrative form, along with a chart in each section. The remaining two sections, Spirit followed by Earth, Community, and Global Connections, are presented primarily in the form of quotes or summarized information from interviewees. The quotations from participants represent only a small portion of the overall content from interviewees. The quotations were selected based on the representative quality of the quote or the clarity and strength of the quote to describe a particular element. Participants were guaranteed confidentiality, so in many instances in the data, only a general interviewee category is given. Two people waived anonymity, and their names are used: the director of CCLC, Alan Furth and YIHS founding student and current teacher, Jacob Hundt, who did a master’s thesis on alternative education in the Viroqua area.
Three additional topics do not fit into these four categories. These include a discussion of the challenges and crises faced by each of the organizations, the perspective of interviewees on what has made the initiative successful, and how sustainability has been built at each site. A presentation of these topics with narrative and quotations follows the four categories listed above.
Identity
The three sites in this study are representative of three types of grassroots education initiatives: an innovative alternative high school, a community learning center, and a learning cooperative/learning center. Each site is described in detail in the following section in order to create a complete picture before comparing the specific qualities of the three sites. The site descriptions include history, mission, program, facility, and vision. A detailed description of the rural area in which each site is located was presented in the Rural Issues section of chapter 2.
YIHS
Youth Initiative High School (YIHS) is an accredited alternative high school in Viroqua, Wisconsin. It has provided a full high school program for students in grades 9-12 since 1996.
History. Youth Initiative High School was founded by a group of high school students and their families. Jacob Hundt, a founding student and current teacher, reflected in a history he wrote of the school: “What bound these students together was a pervasive dissatisfaction with the education they were experiencing in the existing high schools. They also shared a desire for a school that would be academically challenging, respectful of freedom and dignity, and rooted in a sense of community and shared responsibility” (YIHS website, School, para. 1). Several of the students had been influenced by the book, The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quit School and Get a Real Education (Llewellyn, 1998). From the student motivation and initiative came the unique form of the school and the catalyst for the parents. One parent commented that a mythology exists that the students started the school. She acknowledged that they were central in initiating the founding, but that the actual work of creating the school fell heavily on the parents.
Vernon County has been home to numerous grassroots initiatives over the years such as local food co-ops, the Coulee Region Organic Produce Pool (CROPP), the Organic Valley Dairy Cooperative, numerous farming collaborations, an artist cooperative, and small businesses, as well as educational initiatives. The knowledge base and confidence for organizing a new educational initiative ran deep among the four founding families. In the planning phase and during the early formative years, parents were influenced by the Waldorf school model and by two books, The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem (Meier, 2002) and Character First (Gauld, 1995).
Four mothers formed the core group that did the initial planning and work to get the school off the ground. Serious organizational meetings began in the summer of 1996. It was in July of that summer that a firm decision was made that school would begin that fall. An administrator in a nearby school described the starting of YIHS as a “premature birth.” He commented that no policies or expectations were in place. Everyone I spoke with about that first year described it as “chaotic.” Some community members were sure that the school would not make it.
A key factor in the formation of the school at that particular time was the availability of a building. Viroqua Public School had built a new high school, and the former public high school building was purchased by a community member, renamed the Landmark Building, and the space made available to rent. School started in one room of the Landmark Building in September of 1996 with 11 students, including 10 boys and 1 girl. Much of the academic work that 1st year focused on the creation of a mission, vision, and other formal documents for the school. Teachers had been hired to teach specific classes, but no one adult was present all day. “It was hand-off to the next teacher,” one parent said. All four grades were in one room. During that year, the school had a pivotal visit from Tamara Slayton, an author who had written extensively about adolescent needs. The first day she met with the students, she came in dressed in red with her hair in a wild style. She held up the schedule and said, “Boy, they sure have you in little boxes, don’t they!” The next day, she came in dressed conservatively and said, “Yesterday, that was what we did in the 60s. Now, what kind of a school are we going to create here?” She spent the week with the students working on that question. At the end of the first year, the school produced its first annual theatrical production and graduated its first three seniors.
By the 2nd year, the decision was made to hire a full-time teacher/coordinator who would be there all day, and the upper and lower classes were divided into two groups. Hundt, a founding student and current teacher, reported that over the next few years, the school grew slowly, “engaging in the difficult work of establishing traditions, organizational forms, and a strong culture of cooperation and shared responsibility” (YIHS website, School, para. 5).
A pivotal year described by several interviewees was the 5th year. The school had its largest incoming class up to that point, 12-14 students. A number of the families in that group became heavily involved in the school and have been key in carrying the school into the future. The school grew steadily from that point, reaching 55 students in 2007.
Mission. The YIHS has the following mission as described on their website.
The Youth Initiative High School exists to provide holistic, Waldorf-inspired education for grades 9-12. We work with the Steiner model of the three-fold human being consisting of body, soul, and spirit and strive to integrate head, heart and hands (thinking, feeling and willing) into the fabric of school life. Parents, students and faculty cooperatively weave this fabric. We will create an environment which encourages and assists students in becoming free thinkers, and in maturing into active, response-able, empowered participants in the greater society. The school, its students, families and faculty will be of service to the larger community. (YIHS Website, para. 1)
Facility. The school is currently housed on the whole top floor of the Landmark Center. It is located in a residential neighborhood a few blocks from downtown Viroqua. The facility includes numerous classrooms, several offices, a commercial kitchen, a media lab, a metalsmithing workshop, a screen printing shop, and a fully equipped darkroom.
Program. In some respects, YIHS is more reflective of the industrial paradigm of education than the other two sites. School follows the traditional calendar, September to May, it meets from 8-3, and it serves students in the high school grades. In many other respects, it is re-creating what education is for and how it is done. The curriculum, the class schedule, the interface with the local community, and the core values of the school diverge greatly from the traditional high school model. The day begins with a 10-15 minute gathering of the students and faculty. It’s a time for announcements, the sharing of joys and concerns, and an introduction of items that will be discussed at a later time. The school draws from the Waldorf curriculum, which is based on the ideas and work of Austrian philosopher, Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925). “On the basis of this philosophy, YIHS pursues a balance of academic rigor in the sciences, humanities and foreign languages, compassion and cooperation in social life, and creativity and excellence in the practical fine arts” (YIHS website, 2007, para. 2).
Each school year begins with a week-long, all-school camping trip attended by all students at a regional state park. During the week, a wide variety of activities take place, including group-building activities; games; recreation; meal teams; and discussions about school history, fundraising, freedoms, and responsibility. Teachers talk about the curriculum, alumni share their experiences and reflections, and parents talk about what they want their children to gain. Each night, everyone gathers around the campfire, and conversation continues far into the night. One parent reflected that deeply meaningful and vulnerable conversations happen around the campfire that create strong bonds of understanding, support, and community that lay a firm foundation for the year. In August of 2007, the week before the scheduled camping trip, the area received 10 inches or more of rain overnight. Devastating floods resulted, and the area was declared a national disaster. One community in particular was especially hard-hit, with over 90% of the homes damaged or destroyed. The response of YIHS was typical of the spirit and commitment that thrives at the school. The school relocated its week of camping to the city park in the devastated town, and all the students, along with a number of faculty and parents, joined the relief efforts for the week, helping people shovel mud from their homes, haul trash, clean debris from yards and streets, serve meals, and offering open hearts and listening ears of support.
One of the most unusual features of YIHS is the faculty. The founding families wanted students to have real-life experiences and to understand the world in a personal way. One of the ways they have approached this is through the wide variety of community members who come to teach and the great diversity of classes that are offered. In 2006-2007, the school had 55 students and 35 teachers, of whom only 2 were full-time faculty. Over 60 courses were offered. Most of the teachers are not certified, but they each have an area of expertise and a passion that they want to share. Very few textbooks are used. Teachers are encouraged to teach from their passion, “to come from themselves and not from a book” (Founding Parent).
Classes are divided into three categories: main lesson classes, path classes, and art and music classes. Path classes are the traditional high school courses of math, English, social studies, life skills, foreign language, and physical education. These 1-hour classes are scheduled daily and run for a semester or all year, depending on the class. Main lesson classes are interdisciplinary studies built around a topic in math, life science, or the humanities. They are scheduled daily from 8:45 to 10:35 and last 3 or 4 weeks. Main lesson blocks have included topics such as transcendentalism, Native cultures, Parsifal, psychology, physics, botany, agriculture, world religious literature, and art history, to name a few. Students are also involved in two school bands, theater productions, forensics, and Quiz Bowl. The school has sports cooperatives with two schools in the area. International understandings and global connections are also an important part of the YIHS program. Four foreign languages are offered, and a number of study abroad options are available. A group from the school makes a biennial trip to Guatemala for study and service.
YIHS does assessment in a qualitative way and does not use a grading system. Instead, teachers write weekly evaluations about student progress and longer narratives at the completion of courses. Parents and teachers commented that students strive for an exceptional level of excellence, in spite of the absence of grades. One teacher commented, “Just because it’s a kind-hearted school and it’s flexible, it does have high expectations.”
The development of initiative among the students is a strong and unique aspect of the school and is evident in many areas of school life. Students are actively involved in school governance and serve on the board and various committees. They are responsible for 15% of the annual budget and coordinate the fundraising efforts to raise the money. One parent commented, “That really changes them into adults that know how to make things happen.” In the 2005-2006 school year, student efforts raised nearly $13,000. The Matching Gift Program amounted to over $24,000. In effect, the students brought in over $37,000, or 17% of the budget. Student initiative is also seen in the students’ sense of ownership and responsibility for the school. The school does not hire janitorial help. Instead, the students assume responsibility for the care and cleaning of the school. Students have a student body meeting of just students once each week. A student facilitator is picked the week before, who creates an agenda based on past weeks and new issues.
Vision. The school community has ongoing discussions about the future of the school and the visions that people hold for the school. People have questions about growth and the desirable size of the school. Part of this relates to continuing to assess who they are and who they serve. Because of the way high school education is funded in this country, some people feel undue pressure for the school to become a prep school; however, many school members clearly expressed that that is not the direction they want the school to go. The visioning process has generated ideas about starting a second campus somewhere, collaborating with a school in La Crosse, or expanding programming to include homeschoolers. The bottom line that emerged from interviewees was, “Continue to grow creatively.”
CCLC
Cobscook Community Learning Center (CCLC) near Lubec, Maine is a community learning center that serves all ages of learners in a wide variety of programs, some academic and some cultural.
History. Cobscook Community Learning Center emerged from the confluence of the activities of two groups of people in Washington County, Maine in the late 1990s. The first was a group of parents with young children who wanted something different than what they saw as a conventional and uninspiring path to learning that was being offered in the public schools. They saw the schools as narrowly focused in perspective and opportunity, and they were interested in creating an alternative school. Alan Furth (now director of CCLC) was approached and asked if he would help them start a school. He responded by suggesting that they begin a community research project in the area of education. They began meeting every week, and they researched a wide variety of educational approaches such as folk education, experiential education, and indigenous education. Ultimately, they stepped back from the issue of starting a private school to examine the question, “What do we want for our children that we don’t also want for our lives as adults?” In contrast to YIHS where the initiators were both students and adults, the initiators of CCLC were adults.
Around the same time, another group of people took a course being offered in Washington County entitled, The Washington County Leadership Institute. It was led by a woman who offered a holistic, earth-based, and place-based approach to leadership. Twenty-five people from around Washington County participated in an intensive, 15-week program. The Leadership Institute helped people articulate broad, common desires for life in Washington County, as well as identify the challenges.
In June of 1999, the Institute for People’s Education and Action in Massachusetts, an organization with which Alan was affiliated, offered a week-long series of classes on social change and activism. One of the courses offered was, “How to Start and Manage a Folk School” taught by Jakob Earl, who at the time was the Principal of a folk school in Denmark, and Hubert Sapp, who had stepped in as Director of Highlander Folk School shortly after Miles Horton died. Two people from Washington County decided to attend. They took with them a poster that the weekly education research group had generated of their vision of an educational facility for Washington County. The group that gathered at the Institute was deeply impressed by their vision and offered encouragement and support to put the vision into action.
By the fall of 1999, a core group had coalesced that was focused on identifying needs in the area and discussing how an educational organization could address those needs. The group had a strong commitment to community representation within the group, and made sure that the group had representation from the Passamaquoddy, the Canadians, the fishing community, and generational families, as well as relative newcomers. Over the next year and a half, mission and vision statements were created, and they prepared for a kick-off event that would introduce the Cobscook Community Learning Center to others in the area. The week-long event took place in the summer of 2001, and a number of people from the folk education movement such as Chris Spicer, Director of the Folk Education Association of America, Mary Belenky, co-author of Women’s Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997) and A Tradition That Has No Name (Belenky et al., 1997), and Larry Olds, initiator of a number of projects in the People’s Education Movement and author of The Popular Education News, came to participate and to offer their support. Classes were offered such as song writing, pottery, Passamaquoddy language immersion, natural and social history of the Cobscook Bay, and timber framing. The event drew primarily local people ages 13-80 and raised $20,000. With that money, the group was able to buy a 50-acre piece of land on Cobscook Bay, an inlet of the Bay of Fundy, and bordering Maine wildlife land.
Mission. “Our mission is to sustain an educational setting within which people can cultivate understanding and enrich life through experiences in the natural surroundings, with our cultures and traditions, and through access to the arts” (CCLC website, para. 1).
Facility. An environmental engineer/architect worked with a group of local high school students to develop a site plan for the 50 acres. Five acres were zoned for development, and the remainder was to be used recreationally. The center has worked with Maine Wildlife to develop a trail system and to link with trails on government land. The structure of the first building, a timber frame building, was created by students in a class in 2001. Then, the pieces were set aside for 3 years while the property was located and prepared. In April of 2004, the building was put up by hand with a crew of volunteers. It houses a computer lab with public internet access, an ecology and activism lending library, an art studio, meeting and classroom space, and administrative offices. The building is open from 8 AM to 5 PM on Monday and Friday, from 8 AM to 8 PM on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and from 8 AM to 3 PM on Saturday.
This first building was not big enough to accommodate the broad range of programming that the center was striving to do. A second building, the Commons, was built in 2006. It took 4 years to raise the $650,000 needed to build it. This building is much larger than the first and houses a large pottery studio, a commercial kitchen, and a large gathering space that can accommodate events for up to 150 people. Along with the Commons, a caretaker’s house, a pond, and a memorial park were built in 2006. A community garden is in its 2nd year, and money has been donated for an outdoor amphitheater/bandstand/dance platform.
A central piece of the programming is local music. The addition of the Commons and the amphitheater for hosting concerts and other music events will greatly enhance this aspect of programming. The addition of the Commons also makes it possible to host residential programs. Camping facilities are available on the grounds, and food preparation and dining space are now available in the Commons. The next fundraising project is for a dorm to facilitate hosting residential programs year-round and for groups that do not want to camp. The plan also includes a boat house with kayaks and canoes for use on Cobscook Bay.
Program. Cobscook Community Learning Center serves people from three nations: the United States, Canada, and the Passamaquoddy Indian Nation, who live within a 30-mile radius of the center. The center is run by a director, program director, a potter/computer technician, two office staff, and numerous volunteers. It is a learning facility for the entire community, for all ages and stages of life, and for a myriad of learning needs and interests. Programs can be grouped into three categories: a) alternative and supplementary academic programming, b) personal enrichment, and c) advocacy for appropriate educational opportunities and democratic structures for people of all ages. Programming includes courses in the expressive arts, peace studies, politics, social change, culture and agriculture, holistic health, languages, folk arts, and practical skills. People at the Center are involved with numerous collaborative projects, including: a partnership project among the CCLC, the Quoddy Tribes Regional Land Trust, and Lubec Consolidated School; projects with the local public schools and with homeschooling families; the Passages Program, a high school degree program with an interdisciplinary curriculum designed for teen parents; the Carleton Project, an approved high school diploma program; a program with Mercy College to offer online degree options; a partnership with Lesley College to create and offer college courses; and the Grand Lake Stream Folk Art Festival, sponsored annually. The center strives to blur the lines between formal and informal learning and between home and work. It strives to maintain a balance of 2/3 local involvement and 1/3 involvement from outside the area.
Any given week at CCLC might include: a music jam session; a theater group; movie night; high school courses; GED tutoring; homeschoolers working on a project; private music lessons; meeting of a local group such as the Audubon society; a family literacy class; visits with a speech therapist; strength training; computer classes; a writing group; an art or craft course such as watercolor painting, quilting, or blacksmithing; practical skills courses such as sheep shearing or timber framing; and people coming and going to work independently in the garden, the computer lab, or the pottery studio. Seasonal celebrations are a regular part of life at CCLC.
One educator described her experience of teaching English during a summer school program at CCLC. The flexibility of schedule and content allowed her to bring the book, Huck Finn, alive for the students. They made a raft, did journals, kayaked on the ocean, and stopped at an island and wrote haiku. When it was independent reading time, they could read wherever they wanted, even if it was in a tree. For some, it was the first time they had actually read an entire book. The teacher expressed deep appreciation for the setting that allowed them the flexibility to approach learning in such an experiential way and to make it truly meaningful.
A couple in their early 70s spent an hour with me sharing their story of involvement at CCLC. Their story is typical of the appreciation people have for CCLC and the commitment to see it continue. They have lived in Washington County all their lives. They became involved when their daughter signed them up for a music history class at the Center. The husband commented that they were very apprehensive because they had not done any studying since they graduated in 1954. They took the class together and absolutely loved it. It opened the door to a new kind of learning for them and to active involvement at CCLC. When CCLC had an opening for an office assistant, the wife got her first job outside the home at age 70. She reflected, “After the first week, I was so full of confidence. I learned to do things I never dreamed of. How wonderful it is to keep learning at age 73. I want to keep learning more, that’s what it’s all about.” The husband volunteers as a handyman and helped with putting up both buildings. He has built shelves and tables in the pottery studio, upholstered chairs, and helped with landscaping. He and his wife spearheaded the development of a memorial park on the CCLC grounds.
Vision. The staff at the center articulated several programming pieces for the future. A year-long high school program entitled Youth Leadership and Place is being developed. It would focus on knowledge and stewardship of place and local leadership. A program such as this would require wrestling with the question of whether or not to become an alternative school in and of themselves. They are also developing a menu of outdoor expedition programs, and they received a grant in the summer of 2007 to purchase outdoor equipment. The Center is in the process of becoming the national office for the Association for World Education (AWE) and for the Folk Education Association of America. This will allow for global cultural exchange happening from the center.
The staff are working collaboratively with people on both of the Passamaquoddy reservations to find ways to bring programming to the reservations. Both reservations are over an hour from the Center, and this makes accessing programs at the Center difficult. Tribal members would like to see CCLC programming on both reservations.
The following pieces for the future were mentioned by interviewees:
• “We need more here for the children. They’re what’s going to change the world. They’re our future” (Community Member).
• More programming with homeschoolers.
• Build on the relationships with the public schools and explore more ways to fill in gaps where the public schools do not have sufficient funding, especially in the arts. If Lubec loses its high school, as it appears it will with the recent state consolidation mandates, this may create a need for more local high school programming.
• Daycare and after school activities.
• Programming focused on education that helps people find ways to be financially sustainable in Washington County. A community member stated this clearly: “We need education that can keep people here in WA county. . . . The CCLC has the foundation to facilitate a revival of sorts of WA county, and the local resources that are here.”
People at CCLC and in the community are very interested in starting a business that would bring steady funds to CCLC. They have explored the possibility of opening a seafood chowder company or a seafood pie business and have invested close to $50,000 in that exploration.
Headwaters
Headwaters School near Red Star, Arkansas began as a learning cooperative for homeschooling families. In recent years it has also become a community learning center for the whole community.
History. In 1974, a small group of six homeschooling families in Newton and Madison Counties in Arkansas began meeting to have conversations about their children’s education and to explore possibilities for supporting and enriching homeschooling. They came to the conclusion that they “wanted to have something resembling a school” (Founding Parent) for their children ages 5-18. The concept of Headwaters School came into being. People emphasized to me that no one in the group had any resources. Some were making ends meet on a few thousand dollars a year. Sometimes, it was questionable if a family had enough money for gas to bring the kids to school. Everyone was living very rurally and simply, many without modern conveniences such as telephones. This initial group was what many have called hippies or back-to-the-landers. They had come to rural Arkansas looking for a simpler way of life, more connected to the land and to neighbors. Those who managed to stay in the area were resourceful and creative. A lack of monetary resources for a school project was not seen as a hindrance, but as an opportunity for creative solutions.
The reasons given for homeschooling among the variety of individuals were amazingly consistent. The following comments are typical of those I heard from many parents with whom I spoke.
“I’d spent every moment with them (her children), and I couldn’t send them off for long days, away with strangers, especially with the long commute.”
“How did they know how my children learned?”
“There’s a lot of racism in this area, and I did not want my children exposed to that.”
“It was just too hard to send our children off to school; we wanted to be with them. It wasn’t possible to turn my children over to someone else.”
“I couldn’t even consider the drive or the bus ride. It was just too far.”
“Homeschooling was such an easy decision. I wanted to know who was going to be influencing my children. I wanted community support for my choices and my values.”
In many of the homeschooling families, a conscious decision was made to live on one income, to be a little poorer, and to have one parent at home with the children. For one family, the reasons to homeschool were heavily related to the educational philosophy and pedagogy and the presence of racism in the public schools. They felt that “If there had been some cracker jack school here with great ideas, we might never have done this.”
The first Headwaters School building was built on a piece of land owned by one of the families. No legal arrangement was made for rent or a lease. It was a flexible arrangement among community members. The school was built from donated and scrounged materials and entirely with volunteer labor. Many people helped with the building project who did not have children or whose children went to public school.
The New Schools Exchange Newsletter was being published near where the school was located. It was an alternative education journal that came out of Antioch University in Yellow Springs, Ohio. The people from Antioch who had been publishing the newsletter moved to the Ozarks and brought the newsletter with them. They had legal expertise about alternative schools and helped the school to set up as a nonprofit organization. The school also had the assistance of a legal intern at the University of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton, who helped the school to become a legal entity, an accepted private school in the state of Arkansas, in 1976. At some point, the legal requirements for private schools changed, and it became necessary for the families of the school to register their children as homeschoolers in order to have the curricular and scheduling freedom that they desired.
In the early years, teaching was done by the parents and was very informal. By the early 1980s, the school community decided to hire someone to do some of the teaching. The first teacher was paid $3/day/child, paid directly by the parents to the teacher. The teacher was also allowed to have a living space at the school for free as part of their “salary.” For some families, the $3 a day was too expensive, so barter, such as garden produce or carpentry skills, was also accepted for payment. Current “tuition” at the school is $8/day/child, with barter still an acceptable form of payment.
By the mid-90s, the original school was in need of costly maintenance, and a larger space was also needed. School members also felt that it was important that the school own the land on which it was located. The decision was made to relocate and build a new school. It took a great deal of searching for the right piece of land. When found, it involved a complicated land swap with the Forest Service, as well as an arrangement with the Red Star Baseball Club. The land had a ball field that was used by a special use agreement with the Forest Service. The Red Star Ball Club had to sign out of that agreement in order for the Forest Service to carry out a land trade. The school offered the ball club the ability to continue to use the field whenever they wanted. The land was purchased in 1995, and the new school was built in 1996. An anonymous $15,000 donation catalyzed the project. I was told that the donation was made by someone in the community who never had children in the school, but who supported the vision. Organizers held a variety of fundraisers, which raised $25,000, enough for the timber framing and the roof, but not enough for the rest of the building materials. The board, made up of parents, teachers, and community members, took out a $25,000 loan from a local non-profit group called Forge that did small business loans. The building was designed by members and built with 90% volunteer labor. According to the board president, every decision made regarding the school and its construction was the result of reaching consensus. The school is located on six acres that are 17 miles from the nearest town. One parent said of the search to find the perfect building site, “Our reason for being this far out is to enjoy the country life. It’s out in the boonies, but it happens that we live out in the boonies!” The building of the school was covered in a two-page spread in the Fayetteville Morning News.
As the years passed and the children of the initial group grew up and left home, the adults realized that they still wanted and needed the community that the school had provided through their children’s involvement. With the building of the new facility, they began to redefine themselves as a community learning center and make broader use of the facility. In addition to the 2 or 3 days a week that are offered for the children, 12 students in 2007, a variety of activities for adults take place such as yoga, dance and music lessons, as well as social events such as baby showers, school-sponsored bike rides, and annual seasonal celebrations, including Valentines Day, equinoxes and solstices, Halloween, an annual music event called the June Bug Jam, and theatrical productions by a theater group called the Backwash Players.
In 2005, Arkansas film-maker, Cynthia VanBibber, made a documentary film about the school entitled, Headwaters: The School Away From Home. The film has been shown at the Hot Springs Film Festival, The Southern Fried Film Festival, the Ozark Foothills Film Festival, and on public television.
Mission. Headwaters does not have a formal mission statement, but instead lists their goals on both their brochure and their website (Headwaters School website, para. 2-4):
As an educational institution, our goal has always been to support our students in their lifelong quest for understanding and knowledge. We approach education as a process of nurturing and developing the natural, inquisitive and creative aspects that are unique to every human being. We follow the creative interests of each student and strive to provide the best tools at the right time for nurturing and furthering those interests.
The Headwaters School community provides support from birth through adult years. We strive to support and enhance parent/child relationships via multi-generational involvement in both educational and community activities. Headwaters School is itself a community, but with the realization that we exist within the context of larger communities. Our goal as an organization is to use and develop our talents and resources, and to expand the educational and cultural resources of our community at large.
We understand the delicate balance of life on our planet, and realize the impacts that our modern culture is having on the Earth. As responsible citizens of our planet, our goal is to work with our students to ensure an environmentally sound future. A positive attitude towards the future is the key to lasting change, and ecological literacy necessary for that attitude to manifest.
Facility. The school is located on 6 acres that border National Forest land and a state highway. The building is set well off the road, with a large baseball diamond and playing field in front. The school is powered by solar, has in-floor radiant heat, and utilizes a sustainable waste management system. The school facility, built by families of the school as well as members of the broader community, is post and beam construction with straw bale walls covered by stucco. It is a story and a half, with the downstairs mostly open for meetings, classes, dances, and gatherings. It has classroom space, a stage, and a kitchen area. An outdoor stage, outdoor kitchen, and children’s play equipment, including a climbing wall, are in the wooded area along the playing field. The shape of the building creates a small loft with a beautiful hardwood floor. This space houses a library and is just the right size for small dance classes. The school is never locked, and nothing has ever been stolen, although occasionally, unsolicited items do show up.
Program. Classes are offered from September to June for 2 or 3 days a week for all children of schooling age, approximately grades kindergarten through grade 12. Families opt for the number of days that fit their needs. Sometimes, the parents stay for the day, too, particularly if they travel a long distance to participate. A variety of other activities take place at Headwaters, including meetings, concerts, community education classes, theater productions, a monthly grocery delivery, and seasonal gatherings.
Unlike YIHS, Headwaters School is not modeled after another school or philosophy. Individual parents and teachers mentioned books, authors, or philosophies that were influential including: the Rasberry School (Rasberry & Greenway, 1970), Maria Montessori (2002), A.S. Neill (1995) and Summerhill, John Taylor Gatto (1992), John Holt (1976), Ivan Illich (1971), Jonathan Kozol (2005), and Joseph Chilton Pearce (1977). Headwaters members have several core beliefs around which they organized, rather than drawing from a particular model or tradition.
The school is a support to homeschooling, and as such, does not offer a full educational program with a set curriculum. All parents have registered with the state as homeschoolers according to state requirements. The accountability for children’s education rests with the parents, and, no certificates or degrees are available. The classes offered vary from year to year based on the interests and strengths of particular teachers and the needs of the children involved. One teacher may offer artistic activities, another academic activities. Often, two teachers work on the same day, offering different topics. Almost always, a multi-age, whole group activity such as an art project, an outdoor activity, games, or a drama production is part of each day.
Vision. The Headwaters School brochure, put together in the mid-1990s, describes a long-range vision for the school/learning center that includes the development of a 21st century learning resource center for community and regional education. This vision includes the addition of a research lab and dormitory quarters, a desire to sponsor community education programs that provide both computer-based information management and earth living skills development, and the goal to continue to develop their educational network in order to share information and exchange students with other community schools around the world. This vision was formed in a particular school era, with the people involved at the time. This particular vision may or may not be carried out, depending on the interests, energy, and resources of the school community at a given time. My impression was that the school community does not have a group of people to carry this vision forward at this time.
Summary
Identity is one of four domains that are described in relation to the organizational health of the sites in this research. The other three domains are Infrastructure; Spirit; and Earth, Community, and Global Connections. The description of identity in each organization included a narrative description of the history, mission, facility, program, success, and sustainability.
Each initiative in this study is representative of a different type of grassroots education initiative: an alternative independent high school, a community learning center, and a learning cooperative. All three serve a much broader community than just students. Each organization has drawn on the resources of the natural environment, as well as the knowledge and skills of local people and organizations. At each site, a variety of events and activities are offered to the broader community such as seasonal celebrations, concerts and theater productions, and special classes and workshops. All three organizations operate with a board and strive for broad-based participation in decision-making and a sense of ownership.
Although these three initiatives emerged during different time periods and in different places in the country, they all emerged from the desires of a group of people to have more diverse educational opportunities available in the local area. Early planning for each organization was initiated by a core group and varied from a few months at YIHS to a couple years at Headwaters and CCLC. In all three cases, members of the initial core group have remained active in the organization.
The identity of an organization is also created by characteristics of the area in which it is located. A wide variety of local features are presented in Table 1 on the next page. This table compares features of the three sites such as geography, availability of public services, educational options and levels of educational attainment, statistics about poverty and unemployment, and population demographics.
Table 1
Site Information and Demographics
(Statistical information is from the 2000 census unless stated otherwise.)
| |Youth Initiative |Cobscook Community |Headwaters |
| |High School |Learning Center |School |
|Location |Viroqua, Wisconsin |Lubec, Maine |Red Star, Arkansas |
|Size of service area |About a 30 mile radius |About a 30 mile radius |About a 100 mile radius |
|Geography of area |Rolling hills, valleys, and rivers, |Atlantic coast, bays, forests, bogs, |Ozark Mountains, National |
| |unglaciated area known as the Driftless |and Bay of Fundy |Forest, Buffalo National |
| |Region | |River |
|Size of |795 square miles |2,568 square miles |823 square miles |
|county | | | |
|Population of |Vernon County—29,189 (2005); increase of |Washington County—33,288 (2006 est.); |Newton County—8,484 (2005); |
|county |2.3% from 2000 |-1.9% from 2000 |-2.03% from 2000 |
|Population density |35 people per square mile |13.2 people per square mile |10 people per square mile |
|Largest town |Viroqua, population 4,394 (2005) |Callais, population 3,447 (2000) |Jasper, population 498 (2000)|
|in county | | | |
|Population of town that the |Viroqua, population 4,394 (2005) |Lubec, 1652 (2000) |Red Star, unincorporated |
|project is in or near | | | |
|Nearest |Viroqua |Lubec, 9 miles |Fayetteville, |
|full service grocery store | | |60 miles |
|Closest airport |La Crosse, 50 miles |Bangor, 109 miles |Fayetteville, |
| | | |60 miles |
|Number |9 |10 |one, in Jasper |
|of libraries | | | |
|in county | | | |
|Table 1 – Cont’d | | |
| |Youth Initiative |Cobscook Community |Headwaters |
| |High School |Learning Center |School |
|Educational options |public schools, Waldorf School, charter |public schools, private high school, |public schools, homeschool |
| |high school, Christian Academy, Lutheran |homeschool | |
| |School, homeschool co-ops, YIHS | | |
|Economy |agriculture, services |fishing, agriculture (blueberries) |commute or self-employment |
|Per capita income |$21,587 (2005) |$14,119 (2004)* |$17, 023 (2002) |
|% of |12.4% (2004) |16.19% (2006)* |20.4% (2000) |
|population below poverty line | | | |
|% of |22.8% (2000) |23.1% (2006)* |27.8% (2000) |
|children below poverty line | | | |
|Unemployment |6.99% (2005) |8.4% (2006)* |5.4% (2007) |
|(Nat’l avg. was 4.7% in | | | |
|Oct. 2007) | | | |
|Individuals with disability |19% (2005) |27% |25.5% |
|status | | | |
|High school degree or higher |78.9% (2000) |79.9% (2000) |70.2% |
|over age 25 | | | |
|Poverty ranking |Second lowest median income in Wisconsin |Highest rate of poverty in Maine |Not Available |
|Ethnic groups |99.2% Caucasian, small numbers of Black, |93.5% Caucasian, 4.4% Native American, |97.4% Caucasian, small |
| |Native American, Asian, Hispanic |0.8% Hispanic |numbers of Black, Native |
| | | |American, Asian, Hispanic |
|Language other than English |9.3% |5.4% |1.6% |
|spoken at home | | | |
* Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, University of Maine
Infrastructure and Organization
The second domain of organizational well-being is Infrastructure and Organization. The way that each organization has approached this area has affected their long-term success and sustainability. This includes leadership and decision-making, job roles, finances, and resources. Each of these topics is described with narrative and quotes for each of the three sites in the following pages.
Leadership and Decision-Making
YIHS. The school has a full-time director/teacher who facilitates many of the day-to-day decisions. The overall governing body is the members of the school community who gather for an annual meeting or a special meeting. Members are defined in the by-laws as parents, faculty, and students. All have an equal vote. The school also has a board. Many of the structures and policies were put in place when the school had approximately 30 students. Now, it is almost double that, and interviewees spoke of the need for adjustments. One teacher commented,
It’s looser than any school I’ve had dealings with as far as who decides what and when. There’s a structure in a sense, but it’s so flexible that it’s hard to tell sometimes. It’s so fluid, whatever the needs of the situation are at the moment is kind of what dictates who decides or how the decision gets made. To a large extent, that’s worked. It just doesn’t work well anymore because they’re getting too big. The school is involved in a process of gaining greater clarity about decision-making, who makes what decisions, and how they are carried out.
One of the parent initiators of the school emphasized that YIHS is a “bottom-up” organization. She said that in this type of organization, it takes a long time to get everyone on the same page and ready to move forward. She believed, however, that it is worth the effort because it creates organizational resiliency and sustainability because of the wide buy-in. She stressed that it has been critical to keep the organization as open and egalitarian as possible because it “captures people’s gifts and allows them to bring their initiative forward.”
Student initiative and involvement during the early, formative years of the school created a unique organizational structure and a built-in sense of ownership. Students are deeply involved in school governance. Daily meetings for the entire school community are held each morning. A student-only meeting is held once a week to discuss matters of concern from fundraising to the future of the school. Students have representation on the Board of Trustees and on all school committees such as personnel, long-range planning, and curriculum. Students are responsible for raising a portion of the budget, and students have an equal vote on all school matters that come to a vote. One parent emphasized that the school develops leadership in all the students, not just a few.
CCLC. As described in the section on the history of CCLC, CCLC was designed and initiated by a broad-based group of people who had input into its creation over a number of years. It now operates with an executive director, a program director, office staff, and a board. The board is now the primary decision-making body. It is made up of a representative group of people from the broader community. The plan is to grow the board to over 20 members in order to ensure diverse representation.
Headwaters. Headwaters has a unique organizational structure. It does not have a director or an administrator. The board is the primary decision-making body of the school. As a former teacher explained, the school was designed to need very little administration and to be mostly self-perpetuating. The board holds an annual meeting to start the school year and then meets only as needed, primarily to plan fund-raising activities.
In the early years, some of the members recognized a need to protect what had been created from factions or newcomers who might come in with big ideas and want to make sweeping changes. For an individual to be able to vote and actually change things takes a
3-year process. New members have to participate for 3 years, including attending meetings and paying membership dues before they have the right to vote. This allows new people the opportunity to get to know the school and the community before proposing changes.
Funding and Accessibility
YIHS. The cost of education at YIHS was about $4200 in 2006-2007, the total budget divided by the number of students. Families make a pledge toward the cost of education on an individual basis. The average family pledge is about $2600. The school does not have a minimum tuition, but all full-time students are required to pay a $25 application fee (for new students only), a $150 registration fee, and a $350 supplies fee (in 2007). Each family is asked to consider what it means to contribute their fair share and to consider tithing 10% of their income, “a traditional way of relating financially to a community of service” (YIHS website, para. 4). The difference between what families can afford and the budget needed to operate the school is made up by student and parent fund-raising and matching grants. In addition, some teachers donate their pay back to the school. The development office started in 2006 with a half-time person. The focus has been on matching grants that bring $2 for every dollar that students earn through fund raising.
YIHS has a deep commitment to make the school accessible to whoever wants to come. That has meant working creatively with each individual student and family. The minimum amount that a student can pay is the supply and registration fees, which each year are set at an amount that a student can earn in a summer. Each year, a number of students have attended through their own work efforts without family financial support.
One of the biggest financial issues is the desire to have more full-time faculty and to be able to pay all the faculty more. The school currently has just two full-time faculty members. Full-time faculty receive a salary. Part-time faculty are paid $25 per contact hour (2007 rate). The general consensus is that this approach to faculty is not sustainable for the long haul. More teacher continuity is needed at the school, and teachers need to be able to financially sustain themselves.
Another aspect of financial sustainability for YIHS is the long-term future of the facility that they are currently renting. Some would like to see the school own its own facility, which would involve a huge set of financial commitments. Conversations continue about the variety of possibilities for a long-term school home.
CCLC. In 2007, the general operating budget was $214,000. Close to half the budget in 2007, $100,000, was grant money, with $54,000 from donations, $40,000 in program revenues (although at least half of that is scholarship money which is donated), and $5,000 in fundraising events.
CCLC also has a strong commitment to program accessibility. Many of the opportunities at CCLC are free or by donation, such as concerts, lectures, and use of the computer lab, art studios, and library. Course tuitions are kept low, and scholarship money is available. One student commented, “If anyone came here and couldn’t afford a class, the Center would find a way.”
Headwaters. The school has always operated on a very small budget. One member said that they survived on about $300 a year for a long time. The budget for 2007 was $4214. Members pay an annual membership fee, which is dependent upon their level of involvement—$125 for families with children in the school, or $50 for those without children in the school. Along with a few fundraisers during the year, this constitutes the school’s income. The primary expenses are insurance, utilities, and school supplies. Insurance, the greatest expense, was $1400 in 2007. The biggest fundraiser of the year is the June Bug Jam, an all-day concert event, which in 2007 netted $1936.
Teachers are not paid out of the school budget. Each family pays the teachers individually based on their level of participation, more like a tutoring arrangement. Barter has been an acceptable form of payment and might include garden produce or carpentry skills. The school requests that families pay ahead for each month, with no refunds, and parents pay for two holidays and one sick day for teachers.
Over the years, the school has applied for and received a few small grants: a $500 grant for an environmental theater production, a $1500 grant from Stream Team for stream monitoring, and $1000 from Game and Fish to increase the habitat around the school.
Summary
All three organizations have strong commitments to accessibility for anyone who wants to participate. This complicates the financial situation for both CCLC and YIHS because the organization assumes fund-raising responsibility for those who cannot contribute the full cost. YIHS and CCLC indicated that financing can put them in a make-or-break situation. YIHS is currently meeting their financial challenges through parent and student efforts that raise money and through matching grants. CCLC meets their financial needs mostly through grants, although they have admitted that this is neither desirable nor sustainable. Headwaters, after moving through the financial stress of building the new school, is now debt free, and sustains itself with a very small budget. They do not name financial issues as a current challenge in the organization. Financial sustainability is complex and challenging in educational organizations where a consistent funding source such as government money is not available. Headwaters has the least financial challenge at this time, in large part due to their choice not to expand programming or facility.
The following table, Table 2, includes a summary of key aspects of the infrastructure, organization, and resources at each of the three sites. The table is divided into two sections. The first section is Infrastructure and Resources, which includes information on the type of initiative, the size, local resources, facility, and budget and funding. The second section on the second page of the table includes governance, early planning, role of models or mentors, and interface with the local community.
Table 2
Infrastructure, Resources, and Organization
| |Youth Initiative High School |Cobscook Community Learning Center |Headwaters |
| | | |School |
|INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES | | | |
|Type of grassroots initiative |Alternative independent |Learning center |Learning cooperative/ |
| |high school | |independent school/learning |
| | | |center for K-12. |
|Current Size |55 students, 35 teachers, |Director, program director, |12 students, 2 teachers, and |
| |1 director |potter/computer technician, two |many other families and |
| | |office staff, and the general |individuals who consider |
| | |public. |Headwaters their social |
| | | |community. |
|Year Initiated |1996 |1999 |1974 |
|Facility |Rental space in a retired |Fundraising has supported two new |Timber frame and strawbale |
| |public school bldg. |buildings in the last five years. |building built 90% by volunteers |
| | | |in 1995. |
|Local Resources |Large artistic and agricultural|Cultural diversity, spectacular |Talents of local people and the |
| |community. Strong and intact |natural beauty, talents of the |natural beauty of the Ozark |
| |civic culture. |local people. |Mountains. |
|Ongoing Funding |Tuition pledge system, |Fundraising and class fees have |Membership and class fees. |
| |fund-raising. |brought in the majority of support.| |
|Annual Budget |$231,000 (2006-2007 $4200 x |$214,000 (2007) |$4214 |
| |55) | | |
|Early Financial Backing |One family donated a small |None initially. The land for the |Land made available for free for |
| |inheritance for the school to |current facility was made available|the first school. A $15,000 |
| |fall back on in the early |at a bargain price. |donation seeded the new school |
| |years. | |building. |
|Table 2 - Cont’d | |
| |Youth Initiative High School |Cobscook Community Learning |Headwaters School |
| | |Center | |
|ORGANIZATION | | | |
|Governance Structure |Board consisting of director, |Board consisting of director, |Board consisting of teachers, |
| |teachers, parents, and |staff, and community members with|parents, and community members.|
| |students. |the diversity of the community | |
| | |represented. | |
|Early Planning |Meetings began in spring of |Meetings began in 1999, and the |Meetings began in 1974, and the|
| |1996, and school opened the |first official CCLC gathering was|school incorporated in 1976. |
| |fall of that year. |held in 2001. | |
|Initiating Core group |4 families |20 individuals |6 families |
|Interface with local community |Draws many teachers from the |CCLC strives to be a “homeplace” |Seasonal celebrations, theater |
| |community, community agric. |for the local community, and |group, classes, and concerts. |
| |projects, service projects, |offers a wide variety of | |
| |theater, and seasonal |services, classes, concerts, and | |
| |celebrations. |seasonal events. | |
|Role of an inspirational model |Primary model has been Waldorf |Primary models have been folk |Inspiration from a wide variety|
| |education. |schools, Mary Belenky concept of |of philosophies and pedagogies.|
| | |a “public homeplace,” and | |
| | |indigenous pedagogy. | |
|Role of a mentor or inspirational |John Gardner and Tamara |Chris Spicer, director of the |No one in particular. |
|figure |Slayton, educators in the |Folk Education Association of |Participated for many years in |
| |Waldorf movement. |America. |the Alternative Schools |
| | | |Conference. |
Spirit
The spirit of an organization expresses the core values and beliefs that enliven and give meaning to the program and work. The spirit may be expressed in a written statement of values, in the style and quality of the relationships in the organization, and in the mood and culture that develop over time. This is the heart quality of the school or organization. The following quotes give a picture of the qualities of spirit in each of the three organizations.
YIHS
Underlying everything is this amazing commitment and generosity of spirit that comes through all who are involved . . . .We have this huge heart, and that overcomes a lot of difficulties. (Parent)
The initiative comes from this heart that everyone seems to keep as a prominent force. You do things from your heart. You make these big decisions with your heart. You contribute back with your heart. (Teacher)
We nurture self-discipline, positive peer pressure, and a culture of kindness. (Parent)
Excitement that the students have about what they’re doing and their education . . . is number one. (Board Member)
A former student reflected on the strengths of her education at YIHS: “It’s about the person, acknowledging that they are somebody special and they are worthy, and people are invested in them. You’re not floating by yourself.”
People repeatedly described a unique level of acceptance of everyone involved. “A culture has been created in which differences are valued and seen as strengths, and everyone feels at home.” (Parent)
CCLC
CCLC is operated in the spirit of love, respect, humor, and creative, bold adventure. (CCLC website, Values, para. 1)
CCLC is based on working with trust, relationship, and community building. (Staff Member)
There’s a spirit element here that allows for faith and trust and confidence, that’s really hard to define, but it enlivens the work here. (Community Member)
This is a safe place, in terms of welcoming, accepting, nonjudgmental . . . it has an aura of peace and tranquility. (Volunteer)
One of the biggest things we want to create is the image of family. We want people to feel at home here. (Board Member)
This place allows you to really care about your students. (Teacher)
I have found programs to be skill building, talent building, artistically encouraging, academically enhancing, self-confidence building, and encouraging of people to live with purpose. (Passamaquoddy Member)
Headwaters
Safety and love of the kids is foremost. (Board Member)
There is huge community spirit here. (Community Member)
We have a lot of fun being together. (Parent)
We’re more about the feeling than the look. The heart really makes a big difference. (Board Member)
It’s about the love and joy of learning, both as an individual and as a community. (Former Parent)
You’re welcomed, not judged, it’s a respectful place to be. (Community Member)
When we were talking about the design of the new school, I said I didn’t care, I just wanted it to feel like home. (Teacher).
Summary
The spirit of an organization is expressed in the quality of the relationships, the core values of the organization, and in the general mood and culture of the organization as a whole. This domain is perhaps less tangible or visible, and instead is felt or experienced. At all three sites, people expressed that this “heart” element was central to the life and health of the organization. Across all three organizations, this included: respect and appreciation of individual differences, community building and trust, feeling of family, community spirit, humor, and fun.
Earth, Community, and Global Connections
A strong component at each site in both philosophy and programming related to the interface of the organization with the world beyond them—the local environment, the local community, and the broader world. The following narratives and quotations express this commitment. (See also chapter 5 in the Living Systems section on Context.)
YIHS
One of the four founding families was a local farm family, and both parents had grown up in the area with a great deal of family around them. They were woven into the community and had connections with many people and organizations. They brought to the formation of the school a strong belief in interfacing with and serving the local community. This perspective has influenced the school’s mission and curriculum. It is clearly expressed in core value #8: “YIHS is part of a wider community and world. The ultimate end of education at YIHS is to improve the world by fostering the development of courageous, conscientious, and effective individuals” (Appendix C). All students are asked to do six hours of community service each month. Every school year, 1 week is devoted to service in the community. Over the years, members of the school community have done volunteer work for nearly every non-profit group in the area. The service week has recently been moved to the end of the year so that alumni can also participate.
YIHS is located in a rural area of small family farms. Everyone who attends the school takes an agriculture class at least once. The school grows crops at a teacher’s farm, that are then sold as part of fundraising efforts. The agriculture class is also tied into the nutrition class which students are required to take at least 3 of their 4 years.
CCLC
The founding group of CCLC had a deep commitment to creating an organization that was representative of the diversity in the local area and that provided a place for people to come together and share local talents and resources. The site plan for the entire 50 acres was approached with sensitivity to environmental issues and with a desire to encourage people to connect with the natural environment. CCLC’s director is in the process of making CCLC the home base of the national organization, the Institute for People’s Education and Action, as well as the North American headquarters for the Association for World Education. His desire is to have an exchange of knowledge and ideas between local people and people around the world. The following quotes represent the commitment of those at CCLC to local and global connections:
A big part of the mission of CCLC is to sustain an educational setting within which people can cultivate understanding and enrich life through experiences in the natural surroundings, with our cultures and traditions, and through access to the arts. (Staff Member)
CCLC combines education, community, multigenerational learning, and respect for what we have. (Staff Member)
Working with the resources of the environment, that’s what it’s all about. (Board Member)
Headwaters
It is important to note that in this rural area, no formal “community” exists, since no town is large enough to have much infrastructure. Very few live “in town.” Community in this area means the people who live in the area and who gather together for activities such as church, school, or recreation. Headwaters is the hub for a wide variety of community activities that bring people together from a 100-mile radius.
Students have become involved in the local area through river clean-ups and involvement with forest policy concerning burning, logging, and using herbicides. The school sponsors a wide variety of events and activities during the year. Some school activities are offered on weekends and late afternoons in order to include families that do not homeschool. The connection to the local environment is expressed in the following comments:
We all share a love for the beauties of the mountains, streams, and forests around us, and a respect for the powers of the human race. (Former Teacher and Parent)
We offer learning experiences with an emphasis on the environment and community. (Teacher)
Over the years we have developed an appreciation of the wild through adventure trips. (Former Teacher)
Summary
Earth, Community, and Global Connections was the fourth category or dimension of a healthy organization that was described for each of the three sites in this research. The four categories included: Identity; Infrastructure and Organization; Spirit; and Earth, Community, and Global Connections. The last category, just presented, is strongly developed at each of the three sites. Leaders and participants at all three sites have continually strived to integrate local knowledge, culture, and resources into the programming, as well as striven to find ways to build connections and understandings with other communities outside of the area and the wider world. Each of the sites is located in a rural area with unique challenges that people have worked with in order to create connections in the community and with the broader world. In all three cases, people emphasized that those connections have been critical in both the success and sustainability of the organization.
Challenges and Crises
The ways in which an organization responds to the inevitable challenges and crises will have a large impact on both its success and sustainability. For this reason, interviewees were asked to reflect on challenges and crises throughout the life of the organization. The challenges experienced at each site are discussed below, along with interviewee reflections on how the organization has moved beyond challenges over time.
YIHS
The challenges that the school has experienced fall primarily into categories related to growth, identity, financing, and policy, particularly around decision-making.
During the 2006-2007 school year, the school experienced conflict and turmoil “precisely because of the size of the school” (Board Member) and the growth it experienced. The looseness of the structure that served well in the early years was no longer serving well. School members were striving to find a balance between the looseness and enough structure to support the organization.
Like many nonprofits and other private schools, finances are an ongoing issue. One parent summed it up: “To be financially sustainable is a huge thing in this town. It’s small, and we’re all after kind of the same pot of money, in a way . . . continually, a balance must be struck between saying what is really wanted and what can be afforded without the feeling of just settling for.”
YIHS offers a very different educational experience than the traditional public schools in the area. This has, at times, led to misunderstandings and misperceptions in the broader community. One teacher described it as a “paradigm clash.” The YIHS students love their school and are committed to the vision of education that they have experienced. Several people described situations where this passion or commitment to their unique educational experience has been perceived as a feeling of superiority over traditional education. In a small rural community, this can create misunderstandings and tension.
Other challenges mentioned included: maintaining community among all of the constituent groups who live in a large rural area, a need to gain more clarity about what needs the school can and cannot meet, defining the level of commitment to the Waldorf philosophy, a need for a grievance process, and greater clarity about the student role in decision-making. Clearly, YIHS has had its share of a variety of challenges. People stated a number of reasons that the school has been able to move through challenges and continue to be perceived as a strong and healthy educational organization: resilience because of wide buy-in, comfort with chaos, consistent and steady leadership, overall family and student commitment, generosity of spirit, the ability to focus on the best for the kids, and flexibility.
CCLC
Challenges at CCLC are primarily in three categories: financial, participation, and identity. CCLC, like YIHS, does not receive public or government funding. It is an independent non-profit that must raise all of its own financial support. Although some courses have fees, this constitutes only a small part of the income. Consequently, an enormous amount of time is spent dealing with fund-raising activities. Both the director and program director expressed concern that too much of their time is spent on fundraising efforts and not enough on program development and community building. Like many not-for-profit organizations, CCLC lives “right at the edge of not having enough money” (Staff). What allows them to continue to pay their bills at times is a line of credit with the bank, so bills can be paid while they are waiting for funding to come through.
Challenges in the area of participation relate to accessibility and community perceptions about what happens at CCLC. One person commented that it’s wonderful that the CCLC is in the middle of nowhere, but it is also a challenge that it is not in the center of a community. Transportation is a huge issue for people. Many families have only one car and limited resources for gas. “There’s plenty of people who might like to come but can’t afford the transportation” (Community Member). In addition to issues of transportation, the cost of courses was also named as a limiting factor to participation. Even though the CCLC is deeply committed to access for all and has a generous scholarship program, one person said that “People don’t always have the gumption to ask for a scholarship” (Community Member).
Many of the people with whom I spoke described the effect of community perceptions on the level of participation:
There’s a certain amount of skepticism that local people have around something that is new. Is it going to reflect me and my beliefs, my socioeconomic status, is it going to be for people from away (anyone not born in the area), people with money? There is a degree of reluctance among some to step forward and participate. Some people don’t see themselves as learners. That was something that stopped when they finished high school. (Teacher)
Some people, I think, they don’t want change, and they’re comfortable with the way things are. In the beginning there was a lot of skepticism . . . . There’s also a certain perception that it’s just a bunch of granolas (hippies) out there. (Community Member)
A lot of things start off like a ball of fire and then people lose interest. There’s a ‘wait and see’ attitude to see if the CCLC will be around for awhile. (Community Member)
People in WA County are a little suspicious, and they don’t want changes. Some of them look at CCLC as a hippies’ thing. A lot of what is done here is supported by grant money, and people are suspicious of that, too. (Teacher)
The board is wrestling with the issues of identity and how this relates to programming. The mission, values, and vision articulate a broad identity. Because the CCLC wants broad participation and broad ownership, this means that many voices contribute to the process. This sometimes makes it difficult to have a clearly understood identity. The CCLC is presenting a new educational form. It is not a school. It’s not a community center in the usual sense. It’s a hybrid, and this is sometimes difficult for people to understand. The board is seeking to gain greater clarity about the focus of the center’s work for this phase of its development, recognizing that the core programming shapes the public identity. Strategic planning will be the focus of the board’s upcoming work.
People cited the following elements as important to being able to sustain through the challenges: consensus decision-making, consistent and compassionate leadership, openness and communication, outreach, outside facilitation, and broad-based participation and commitment.
Headwaters
One parent reflected that the school has had “deep valleys and high mountains.” The biggest challenges expressed by people relate to finances, student numbers, energy and commitment, and interpersonal conflicts. The Headwaters school and community have moved through several times that members described as challenges, rather than crises. The first was in the early 80s when several of the core families moved out of the area for a number of years for professional reasons. Interviewees commented that people had doubts that the school could hold together without those core families. The next major challenge was when members decided to build a new school and take on a $25,000 debt to be repaid at $5000 a year. Twelve families came forward and said that if push came to shove, they would each take out a $1000 loan. That made it easier for the board to assume the responsibility.
The most clearly articulated divisions in the local community that have been a source of tension for the school are related to generational families versus nongenerational families and church-goers versus non-church-goers. People who homeschool are in all groups. The back-to-the-landers are generally non-generational families. One woman who moved to the area over 30 years ago described the relationship with the generational families in the area in this way:
This was a loving community here. They were very giving and taught us (the back-to-the-landers) a lot. There was a respect, they saw we worked really hard, we took good care of our kids. They respected that we wanted to educate our own children. Over the years, they have brought their troubled children to Headwaters. (Former Parent)
Another former parent added:
The locals (generational families) took care of us many times. They supported the school with resources and labor. My associations with the local people have always been cordial, but in no way do I feel I am part of their culture. There’s no shared value system. (Former Parent)
Because of the 34-year history of the organization, people appeared to have reflected carefully on how they have been able to come through challenges:
The ability to keep the kids foremost, to pick our core beliefs and be flexible with everything else. (Board Member)
Humor helped us get through normal and expected disagreements that people will have. (Former Teacher)
The need was great . . . we were willing to hang in there. (Former Parent)
People seemed to sort of agree that their ego domain was at home, and egos were set aside at school. (Former Teacher)
A comparison and analysis of the responses of each organization to challenges and crises is presented in chapter 5.
What is Success?
In chapter 1, a definition of success was offered based on the work of Ernst and Statzner (1994), who defined success as “a socially constructed and culturally embedded variable” (p. 202). This approach to success has guided this research. Success at each site was indicated by the extent to which each organization is accomplishing their mission and goals or other measures of success that they have determined. During my time with each organization, I asked for the organizational definition of success, as well as participants’ perceptions of what has contributed to the success of the organization. This is presented in the form of narrative and quotes in the section that follows. In addition, I offer my perspective as an outside observer, for an additional source of qualitative data on success in each organization.
Many schools measure success based on test scores. I stated in chapter 1 that a goal of this research was to look at success outside of test scores. Success can also be examined by a comparison to descriptions of organizational success offered by practitioners and researchers in the fields of education or community organizing and development. These features of success are presented in chapter 2 and are discussed in light of each of the three sites in chapter 6.
In summary, success is examined from three perspectives in this dissertation: the perspective of the participants at each site, the perspective of the researcher, and a comparison with qualities of success described in the literature by other researchers and practitioners.
YIHS
The core values of the school listed in formal documents offered this description of the successful YIHS student: “The successful YIHS student is one who fully and consciously commits to participation in the life of the school, including both academics and school governance. YIHS will work for as along as necessary with any student for whom this commitment, as expressed in words and actions, remains in effect” (Appendix C).
Teachers described two types of organizational success: external—YIHS students who apply to college are accepted; and internal—character, hard work, and initiative are stressed. Students and families receive regular feedback about student work and school involvement. One parent summarized how she sees the successful YIHS student:
We want the students to bring sufficient good will and effort to use the capacities they have to the highest degree possible, and that they fulfill their responsibility to their fellow students and to the school. We want for each student to find their niche, their way to contribute. That is a microcosm for a satisfying and happy life later on, finding your niche in life.
Another parent added, “What we really want is to have a child leave as a whole person, not fragmented . . . someone who can go out and get what they need in the world and contribute to the world.”
As a researcher observing the school from the outside, I saw success manifested in a number of ways. The most evident areas of success are in the exceptional quality of the program; the ability of the school to develop the talents and initiative of the students; the love of the school articulated by students, parents, and teachers; the degree to which the program is place-based; service to the broader community; the genuine accessibility of the school for all who want to attend; and the confidence and competence with which YIHS students move on to other endeavors beyond high school.
The greatest concerns I have about the school’s ability to be successful in the long-term relate to organizational issues and decision-making, which have plagued the school since the beginning. After this research was completed, the school’s long-term director resigned for personal reasons. This has created a stressful and complicated situation for the school to work through, and it does contribute to image issues already present in the broader community.
CCLC
Success at CCLC was described in two ways, organizational success and participant success. “Financial success is the first piece of organizational success because it supports programming success and outreach success. Financial success would mean that money is being raised for 1 or 2 years out. It means being in a position that we know that we have the resources to do the work next year” (Staff Member). Success for participants was described in this way: “We want people to feel at home here . . . to fall in love with life and to find their passions. We want to develop a community of learners that are empowered and impassioned to pursue whatever it is they’re interested in” (Staff Member).
As a researcher, I spent more concentrated time at CCLC than at the other three sites. This provided time to experience in more depth both the strengths and the challenges of the organization. CCLC is an extraordinarily well-founded and successful, though young, organization. It was created with thoughtful, well-informed planning and broad-based local participation, along with the support of a number of outside mentors who lent their insights and encouragement. The organization was built on traditions that have been successful, such as the folk school model. Along with a time-tested model, the initiators designed the organization based on the local environment and local issues. Their success has been built through strong leadership, passionate staff and enthusiastic participants, phenomenal fundraising, and programs that are intergenerational and relationship-based. In addition, the arts are used to build connections among people and communities. The organization and the programming are exceptionally representative of and responsive to the various cultural groups in the area. This is seen in the diverse representation among the board and the staff, as well as in the class participation. In the chapter 5 section on living systems and diversity, this is described in more detail.
The greatest struggle affecting the long-term success of CCLC is financial. Can the organization sustain the level of fundraising or find funding sources that are less labor intensive? It appears that strong, committed leadership has been critical in their success. How might the organization be affected by a change in leadership?
Headwaters
People at Headwaters were reluctant to answer the question of how success is defined. One teacher said, “I don’t know what you mean by success.” People expressed the feeling that this word and concept are overused and overemphasized. It is part of the mainstream approach to education that they are trying to do differently. Their emphasis is on every child finding and developing his/her talents, feeling good about him/herself, and feeling part of and contributing to a community.
As a researcher, I was impressed by the longevity and the evolution of Headwaters School. It has become a much-loved and integral part of this remote, rural community. Children and families rely on the programs as support for their homeschooling efforts. For many children, Headwaters School has been their only formal educational experience. The school is just beginning to see a second generation of participants: adults who attended as children are returning with their children. Longevity alone, especially in a rural community with limited resources, is a strong indicator of success. Headwaters is entering its 34th year as a school. The strengths that I observed, which appear to have contributed to their length of service to the community, include: deep commitment to the school among the members along with the support and encouragement of non-members, shared values and strong bonds of community, flexibility and creativity in response to change or challenges, and hard work and perseverance, along with a sense of humor and an easy-going style among many of the members.
Several people expressed that the school has experienced an ebb and flow of participation over time. Based on stories, school photo albums, a video about the school, and general impressions, I got the sense that the school is in an ebb time right now. Student numbers at the school are down. Several of the key people whose energy and enthusiasm helped to sustain the school in earlier years are not as involved. I did not see the enthusiasm and energy for the present as I heard about past programming. The school has no debt, its programming is diversified, and it has a beautiful facility that is very accessible to the community. These attributes can make it possible for the school to move gracefully from ebb to flow again when a group of people bring renewed energy and enthusiasm.
Members at each site clearly described what it means for their organization to be successful. Although people at the three sites articulated this somewhat differently, ultimately, the members of all three organizations feel that their work has been successful if students and participants connect to a passion in life that allows them to contribute in a meaningful way to their local communities and to the world. Common themes related to success in all three organizations are summarized in chapter 6.
How is Sustainability Built?
At each site, interviewees were asked to reflect on what they believed has been critical in the sustainability of the organization.
YIHS
School members see sustainability built through the reputation of the program, financial stability, and genuine service to the community. Financial sustainability is supported by working with close to a balanced budget. The continual building of a positive reputation that continues to draw students and families is part of sustainability. Other aspects that were mentioned include: a strong internal organization that is “bottom-up” and egalitarian in nature, strong communication among school community members, good discipline, community-based faculty, service back to the community, and an attractive and stimulating program.
CCLC
In addition to the financial piece already discussed in the section on infrastructure, sustainability is also about energy, the engaging creative fuel that keeps the programming and the work enlivened. Much of their work is about building relationships. Fundraising is especially about building relationships. They’re looking for money, but also for partners whose mission closely aligns with the work of CCLC.
Long-term sustainability also involves working with people to foster a sense of ownership. Ownership is created through fundraising, program and volunteer participation, and decision-making input. Sustainability involves stewardship. Any resources that people are accessing need stewards, whether they are financial stewards, facilities stewards, or program stewards. The two comments below are typical of responses to the question about sustainability.
To sustain the CCLC, they need people to come and access these programs . . . . The best way for this is word of mouth . . . . that’s the best thing here, that’s where the trust is. (Community Member)
Developing a broader web of participation and use is central to the sustainability of the CCLC. (Staff Member)
Headwaters
One of the members of the Headwaters community who has been involved since its inception said, “All the parents that I know who have been involved from the beginning are as flabbergasted by its success as anyone else.” People did not really expect the school to last as long as it has. As they reflected on the more than 30 years in the life of the school, several pieces emerged as central to its sustainability:
The need was great . . . and we didn’t have other options . . . we were willing to hang in there. (Former Parent)
It’s about need and commitment. Fayetteville has tried a number of times to get an alternative school started, and there is plenty of money there and certainly enough interested people, but if people aren’t getting along or don’t like something, they just go somewhere else. We were motivated to see this through. (Former Parent)
Building relationships is central for all involved. (Board Member)
A lot of us had the idea that this was something we wanted to have continue, so we did it in such a way that others could come get involved. (Founding Parent)
Flexibility was critical. (Former Teacher)
We were able to identify core beliefs and interests and try to be flexible with everything else. We have kept the kids foremost. (Former Teacher)
Summary
This chapter included qualitative data from 38 interviews, field notes, and documents at grassroots education sites in Viroqua, Wisconsin; Lubec, Maine; and Red Star, Arkansas. The data were organized in four categories that make up dimensions of a healthy organization and included: Identity; Infrastructure and Organization; Spirit; and Earth, Community, and Global Connections. In the three sites in this study, these four areas are well developed and are interconnected to create dynamic, healthy organizations. This has been a key to the success and sustainability of each organization. In addition, the topics of challenges and crises, success, and sustainability were discussed for each of the sites.
The overall goal of presenting the data in this manner was to create a comprehensive picture of each organization in order to gain insights into what has built success and sustainability in each case. The purpose of this chapter was primarily to present data in the form of narratives, quotes, and tables. Chapter 5 continues with further comparisons, along with analyses of qualities at each of the sites, which will lead ultimately in chapter 6 to conclusions about success and sustainability in grassroots initiatives.
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter continues the presentation of qualitative data from the three case study sites in this research, with a focus on comparative analysis of the data. The following topics are discussed: organizational differences among the sites; learning from challenges; the role of the identity of the initiators, local geography, societal trends, and paradigm shift; and the presence of the qualities of living systems.
Organizational Differences Among the Sites
Differences are one way to compare organizations. Differences may indicate aspects that have been influential in success and sustainability but are unique to a particular area or situation, or differences may indicate aspects that are important, but not as critical for success and sustainability. Differences may also represent areas of challenge.
The three sites demonstrate variety in the amount of planning before inception and the amount of formal structure in the organization today. YIHS spent only a few months in planning before the school opened. The founding of YIHS was described by one interviewee as a “premature birth,” and skepticism about the sustainability of the school was widespread. Schaefer and Voors (1996) used the same language, “premature birth” (p. 99), to describe initiatives that begin without adequate planning. Their experience has been that the prognosis for these initiatives is not good. An administrator at a neighboring school felt that it took YIHS several years to recover. Still, YIHS has managed to overcome this shaky beginning and establish itself as a strong and well-respected educational option in a small, rural community. Apparently, other factors have compensated for this tenuous beginning. At both CCLC and Headwaters, initiators spent 2 or 3 years in discussion and planning before the organization was fully launched. Although by many measures, all three organizations are successful today, YIHS has had more organizational challenges related to policy and decision-making than the other two. The question can be asked, “How much of their struggle is related to their quick start with minimal planning?”
Another important difference is the role of an educational model in shaping the initiative. Both CCLC and YIHS have drawn inspiration from long-lived traditions that have been effective over time. YIHS has been strongly influenced by Waldorf philosophy and pedagogy. CCLC has been shaped by folk school philosophy and pedagogy, by indigenous pedagogy, and by the concept of a “public homeplace” (Belenky et al., 1997, p. 155). At Headwaters, individual families and teachers have been inspired by certain educational thinkers or models, but the community as a whole has been “too diverse to settle on a particular model or philosophy” for the school. Both approaches appear to have served the organization well in their unique contexts.
Headwaters has the least formal organizational structure of the three. The school operates with a unique mix of structure and looseness. One parent described the school as “a shoestring operation” that never got much above that until the group had to get more formalized in order to go through the legal process to obtain a deed and secure a loan to build a new school. At that point, 20 years after the initiation of the school, bylaws, a mission statement, and a brochure were created. The school has never had a director, they operate on a very small budget, and they do not offer degrees of any kind. The greatest involvement of the Board was during the time that the new school was being built. During most years, no major decisions need to be made, other than planning for fundraisers. Members described the organization as being set up to be “mostly self-perpetuating.” A former teacher commented, “We are so unorganized, I just don’t know how to tell you.” The lack of formal organization has worked for them, and Headwaters School has continued to serve the community in a myriad of ways for more than 3 decades. The case of the organizational form of Headwaters is contrary to the literature that emphasizes the importance of strong leadership and establishing community alliances (Brown, 2006; Hoskins, 2005). It is interesting to note that for most of their history, in contrast to most organizations, Headwaters has not focused on growth or expanding programming. This may have made it easier to function with limited leadership and organizational framework. They also do not have the accountability pressures that are associated with the offering of degrees.
The organizational structure of CCLC and YIHS are in sharp contrast to Headwaters. Both operate with a director and an active board. They have carefully articulated statements of mission, values, and vision presented on extensive and well-organized websites. Both operate with a budget exceeding $200,000. Both organizations offer programs with certificates or degrees. Their organizational approach is more in alignment with the recommendations of researchers and practitioners.
Learning from Challenges
Each of the initiatives has experienced times of challenge or serious crisis. These were presented in chapter 4. Schaeffer and Voors (1996) pointed out that challenge is an inevitable part of growth and development. Some organizations are not able to move through these times, and disintegration results. The ability to move through challenges and learn from them can bring renewed strength that supports the sustainability of the organization.
The three initiatives in this research have experienced times of challenge and crisis and have successfully moved beyond them. As Schaefer and Voors (1996) indicated, the factors that facilitate moving beyond challenges are likely to be critical in the success and sustainability of organizations. Interviewees suggested that what has helped the organizations move beyond difficulties has been: the ability of community members to focus on core values and not get stuck in the details; honesty and open communication; the presence of a core group truly dedicated for the long haul; flexibility; humor; and in some cases, outside facilitation when conflict arose that could not be resolved from within the organization.
The Role of the Identity of the Initiators, Local Geography,
Societal Trends, and Paradigm Shift
One set of qualitative data emerged that does not fit other descriptive categories. It does relate to the identity and values of those who choose to get involved with these initiatives, and this in turn is bound to affect success and sustainability. Grassroots education initiatives represent people’s desire for a different educational form. This desire may emerge from a number of areas, as discussed in chapter 2. I expected that some people who were involved in grassroots education might have strong opinions about public education, but I did not intend to explore that topic in this study. None of the interview questions asked people to reflect on their own schooling experiences or to offer opinions of other educational contexts. I was surprised to find that asking people about the strengths of the grassroots project or how they got involved elicited clear descriptions of and strong emotional responses to their own or family members’ experiences of public education. Without any prompt to discuss other educational experiences, the following numbers of individuals at each site brought this information into their responses: At YIHS, 6 of 9 interviewees; at CCLC, 15 of 20 interviewees; and at Headwaters, 8 of 9 interviewees. This group of people included people of all ages ranging from 21 to the early 70s, both Passamaquoddy and Caucasian groups, and it included both people who identified themselves as generational locals and back-to-the-landers. Not one person spoke fondly or positively of his/her own public school experiences. Many expressed strong concerns for their children or grandchildren in regard to what is being taught in public schools, how it is being taught, and the social environment in schools today. Negative experiences of public education appeared to cross all lines of identity within the organizations.
Three people at CCLC spoke positively about a local public school with which they had peripheral involvement. They described it as being much loved by local families. The school is a two-room public school serving 40 children in the tradition of one-room schools. Local people have a long tradition of involvement in and support of the school. One resident said, “They probably learn more there than at any of the other schools in this area.” The qualities of this school appear to be more similar to grassroots initiatives in size and philosophy than to its more traditional public school counterparts.
Interviewees reflecting on public schools cited concerns about lack of flexibility of format, rigidity of schedule and curriculum, the amount of time students are asked to sit, and bureaucratic structures. The following are representative comments about public school experiences from each of the sites.
The authoritarian nature of school was bigger than I could fit my style of teaching into. (YIHS Teacher)
These giant textbooks that are really linear facts, you read them again and again, you don’t digest them, you don’t put them in any context, you don’t make any relevance to your life. The teachers aren’t really given the option to put things in context to their students’ lives . . . and why it’s important to learn history or mathematics. I was getting A’s, but I was never walking out of the classroom with skills. I felt not very in charge of my own learning, a lack of control, pushed from one classroom to the next at the ring of a bell. It didn’t feel human or natural to me. (Former YIHS Student)
As mentioned in chapter 4, a founding YIHS student reflected on the early years of the school, “What bound these students together was a pervasive dissatisfaction with the education they were experiencing in the existing high schools.”
Schools don’t provide skills and knowledge that allow kids to stay in the area and make it economically. (CCLC Community Member)
It’s crazy our education is the same type they taught back when schools first started, and the times are changing. (CCLC Community Member)
My son absolutely hated school. Traditional schooling never really fit him. It was
“sit in your seats and behave. Here’s the information and now write it down and now
do it,” a cookie cutter mold. (CCLC Parent and Public School Teacher)
This system is failing our kids. We need a new education system here! We need it bad! (CCLC Parent and Passamaquoddy Member)
A local principal involved at CCLC stated bluntly, “What we have are kids sitting in boxes with parents excluded. I don’t think that’s particularly healthy for either group. Public education excludes not only parents, but community, too”.
To lump them all together and teach them all the same way doesn’t make sense (Headwaters Board Member)
Kids are not biologically designed to sit at desks for eight hours. (Headwaters Teacher)
My experience of public school was so horribly traumatic, and I would never subject a child to that. (Headwaters Teacher)
Public school was so constricting of kids’ abilities. (Former Headwaters Parent)
Concerns about public education were a common characteristic among the participants at all three sites. What else can be said about who the people are in these initiatives and how that affects the success and sustainability of the initiatives? Three terms are representative of the initiators and, to varying degrees, those involved at each site: back-to-the landers, Cultural Creatives (Ray & Anderson, 2000), and greens. At each of the three sites, interviewees made reference to back-to-the-landers in the initiation of, and on-going involvement with, the initiative. The other two terms, Cultural Creatives and greens, are not used at the sites, but I propose that they typify some of the participants. Cultural Creatives is a term coined by Ray and Anderson. This term refers to a large segment of the population in Western society, over a quarter in the U.S. who are disenchanted with materialism and are seeking a way of life more focused on relationship, the arts, spirituality, and the earth. Greens is a term that refers to people who are concerned about environmental issues and are interested in promoting sustainable practices that are good for the Earth.
McKibben, in the forward to the Rural Renaissance (Ivanko & Kivirist, 2004), wrote that several waves of back-to-the-landers have taken place in the last 80 years. He described back-to-the-landers as “people who have given up mainstream, contemporary American culture for a return to a way of life variously imagined as simple, more natural, and more rooted in community” (p. xv). The first wave in the mid-1900s was inspired by Helen and Scott Nearing (1954). The second wave was the hippies in the 1960s and 1970s. The third wave has been occurring in the last 10-15 years. All three of the initiatives in this study have been influenced to varying degrees by the involvement of people who describe themselves as back-to-the-landers. Many of the people with whom I spoke in the Headwaters community referred to themselves as back-to-the-landers. Headwaters emerged during the early 1970s in the wave that McKibben described as the “hippie wave” (p. xv). YIHS formed in the late 1990s in an area where a rural renaissance, the third wave, has been underway. CCLC had the fewest references to back-to-the-landers, although the involvement of back-to-the-landers and granola types, a term similar to hippies, was mentioned. It is not surprising, perhaps, that rural education initiatives taking place outside of mainstream education would involve a number of back-to-the-landers. These are people who are exploring another paradigm for constructing their life and community culture, a culture that honors rural life and is rooted in community.
No one at the three sites referred to themselves as Cultural Creatives (Ray & Anderson, 2000), but I observed that some participants at each site share characteristics and values with the group described as Cultural Creatives. Cultural Creatives are part of a cultural trend in the U.S. that was documented by Ray and Anderson and discussed in chapter 2. The core values, daily practices, and the culture at each of the three sites also reflect this description. As stated in chapter 2, Culture Creatives hold a different vision of what education is for, how it is done, and what it means to be successful. The presentation of public school issues found at all three sites indicated widespread dissatisfaction with traditional educational structures among initiators and participants at each of the sites and a desire for another paradigm to inform education, as well as other aspects of their lives. The educational paradigm at each of the sites has striking similarities to the description of the form of education desired by Cultural Creatives, as summarized by Ray and Anderson. They proposed that Cultural Creatives desire learning that is intimate, relational, experiential, and connected to daily life and to nature.
At YIHS, founding student and current teacher, Hundt, spoke of the area having a lot of what he called, “early adopters” (Rogers, 1995, p. 22), innovators and experimenters who initiate new forms, whether it’s in business, agriculture, the arts, or education (Hundt, 2000). Perhaps these “early adopters” are Cultural Creatives. Hundt tied this to the landscape, a geography that has not been well suited to industrial agriculture. Consequently, people have explored economic activities and agriculture that are smaller scale, innovative, and outside the industrial model. The landscape at each of the three sites seems to require of people who live there a certain amount of hardiness, individuality, innovation, and thinking outside the box; the mainstream path is not a viable option. People at Headwaters also emphasized that hardiness and creativity have been a strong factor in who has stayed long-term in the area. This raises the question, “Are areas where the industrial model of agriculture and business not as entrenched more likely to attract people who are interested in exploring approaches outside of the industrial model, in business, agriculture, and in education?”
Another term that aligns with the identity of many of those involved at all three sites is the term “greens.” Ivanko and Kivirist (2005), authors of Rural Renaissance, who wrote about a green, sustainable approach to rural life, proposed an alternative to measuring the quality of American life by the Gross National Product. They proposed a Diversified Quality of Life Index (DQLI), which is measured by various factors and includes:
having a meaningful livelihood that expresses our creativity, passion, and soul; on-going opportunities for life-long learning and experiences; maintaining mental, physical, and spiritual health; opportunities for continuous personal, spiritual, and creative development; building solid, meaningful relationships with family and friends; the satisfaction and joy that comes with greater self-sufficiency; and connecting to the interdependent web of life which proves an abundance of diverse perspectives, and experiences. (p. 223)
This description of a green approach to life fits many of the people and the values found at all three sites.
The following figures present the core values articulated in documents and/or by members at each of the three sites.
Youth Initiative High School
|Intrinsic dignity and importance of each |Hard work, responsible behavior, and |Improvement of the world by the development |
|individual |community combined with spiritual growth and |of courageous, conscientious, and effective |
|Education of the whole human being |personal development |individuals |
|Development of autonomous, self-directing |Initiative, critical thought, |Commitment to the local community, as well as|
|moral individuals |self-motivation, and foresight |development of global understandings and |
|Accessibility for all |Broad-based participation in governance and a|connections |
| |sense of ownership |Community and relationships |
Figure 2. Core Values of YIHS
Cobscook Community Learning Center
|Accessibility to all people of Cobscook Bay |Diversity |Education of the whole human being |
|Social, economic, cultural, ecological, |Stewardship of the earth |Recognition of multiple ways of knowing |
|personal, and familial empowerment |Access to the arts for personal development |Respect for the people, the environment, and |
|Unconditional regard and honoring of people’s|Relationship, trust, and community building |the history of the local area |
|inherent potential | | |
Figure 3. Core Values of Cobscook Community Learning Center
Headwaters School
|Community |Love and joy of learning |Broad-based participation in meetings and |
|Respect for the powers of the human race |Development of personal responsibility |decisions |
|Love for the natural environment |Acknowledgement of different learning styles |Experiential and interactive learning |
|Educational experiences in alignment with |and rates of learning |Multi-age and multi-generational learning |
|core family values | | |
Figure 4. Core Values of Headwaters School
What is clear about the initiators and participants at each site, whether they are described as back-to-the-landers, Cultural Creatives, early-adopters, or greens, is that they share some common characteristics and values. They are generally individuals who: have concerns about the mainstream approach to education; are exploring alternative paradigms for education and other aspects of their lives, as well; are creative and flexible thinkers and innovators who are not afraid to “think outside the box;” and who hold a set of values that includes stewardship of the earth, an emphasis on relationships and community, a recognition of a spiritual dimension to life, an appreciation of diversity, a primary place for the arts in education and daily life, and a focus on developing individual talents and passions that can be of service to the community and larger world.
Living Systems, Sustainability, and Visionary Grassroots Education Initiatives
Lastly, in this analysis of the qualitative data, I propose a correspondence between the key features found in these education initiatives and the qualities of living systems that were discussed in chapter 2. Part-way through the data analysis, I was invited to join a group from CCLC to present a workshop entitled, “Folk Schools and Radical Social Change,” that was part of a conference on “Leadership, Education, and Activism for a Life Sustaining Civilization” hosted by Lesley University. Participation as a workshop facilitator and an attendee provided the opportunity to listen and dialogue about current social and ecological issues and the role of education.
In the last decade, the term, sustainability revolution, has been increasing in use. Edwards, author of The Sustainability Revolution (2005), described the situation this way:
Not since the industrial revolution of the mid-18th and mid-19th centuries has such a profound transformation with worldwide impact emerged onto the world stage. Like its industrial counterpart, the sustainability revolution is creating a pervasive and permanent shift in consciousness and worldview affecting all facets of society . . . . It is a revolution with a new value system, consciousness, and worldview. (pp. 2, 5)
Edwards described 39 organizations and projects around the world that focus on sustainability. The focus of the work varies, but the author found “remarkable similarities in the key values expressed by the organizations” (p. 128). He identified seven themes: “stewardship, respect for limits, interdependence, economic restructuring, fair distribution, intergenerational perspective, and nature as a model and teacher” (p. 128). Several of these themes are also common to grassroots education initiatives: stewardship, interdependence, intergenerational perspectives, and nature as model and teacher. I explore this last characteristic, nature as a model and teacher, below in greater detail in its relation to grassroots education projects.
During the week at the conference, I began to view my data through the lens of ecological sustainability. I began to wonder how living systems, with nature as a model, might align with the qualities and core values of the research sites. I went back through all of the interviews and coded for qualities of living systems. An interesting correspondence emerged. Every quality of living systems, discussed in chapter 2, was strongly present at all three sites. It could be argued that these qualities are found in all education settings, and to some extent, this is probably true. What seems different at these three sites is the degree to which these qualities are reflected in statements of core values and carried out in the daily life of each initiative. The living systems qualities of context (Capra, 2002), cooperation (Capra, 2005), creativity (Swimme & Gordon, 2003; Wheatley, 1998), cycles and patterns (Capra, 1996), diversity (Capra, 2002), dynamic balance (Sarason, 2000; Senge, 1990), relationship (Capra, 1996), self-organizing (Wheatley & Kellner –Rogers, 1996), and wholeness and complexity (Capra, 1996) are central in these three grassroots education initiatives and are articulated as strengths by those involved. Each quality is listed below with quotes or descriptions that demonstrate the quality at each site.
Context
YIHS
One of the founding families brought with them a strong belief in interfacing with and serving the local community. Each student is required to do 6 hours of service work each month, and 1 week a year is dedicated to service in the community. In addition, in this rural agricultural area, everyone who attends YIHS takes an agriculture class at least once. All students are also involved in growing vegetables that are sold as part of fundraising efforts.
CCLC
Activities at CCLC honor local history, local talent, and natural resources. As one board member said, “Working with the resources of the environment, that’s what it’s all about.”
Headwaters
A quote by Ivan Illich is on the cover of their brochure: “Most learning is the result of unhampered participation in a meaningful setting.” The learning experiences integrate, as much as possible, the natural environment, which is the primary local context, since no towns are in the area. One parent commented, “We all share a love for the beauties of the mountains, streams, and forest around us.”
Cooperation
YIHS
People hold a collective desire to make YIHS the best place they can for the students. Parents, teachers, and students have created an organizational culture in which they strive to set aside differences, be flexible, and come together in the best interests of students and the school. Students, parents, and teachers are viewed equally as co-creators of the school, and all are involved in governance. One parent shared that the parents were all saying, “What can we do for our children to make it a better world?” A founding parent reflected on the cooperative spirit in the school: “We strive to keep the organization as open and egalitarian as possible, because it captures people’s gifts and allows them to bring their initiative forward.”
CCLC
The first building, a timber frame structure, was put up by volunteer efforts. Participants in CCLC programs reflected, “CCLC programs and courses are invitations into collaborative and shared learning,” and “Some of the great things here are around collaborative efforts and cross-pollination with other organizations.”
Headwaters
The school building was designed by members and built with 90% volunteer labor. Decisions are made through consensus, and all members of the school community are involved, including students, teachers, parents, and other school members. Students are taught conflict resolution skills.
Creativity
YIHS
Curriculum flexibility and creativity are exemplified by one teacher’s comment, “The sky is the limit in terms of what you can do with the students.” A strong emphasis on creativity is also seen in the role of the arts in all aspects of the curriculum.
CCLC
CCLC Director, Alan Furth, emphasized the importance of creative endeavors in people’s lives: “Access to the arts should be an entitlement, not a frill.”
Headwaters
The mission statement speaks of “creative aspects” and “creative interests.” Headwaters members consistently described the school as a creative environment in this way:
Among the families, there’s a depth of commitment, perseverance, hard work, and
creativity. That all carries through to the school and the work with the children. (Parent)
It’s a creative environment. It’s about the love and joy of learning, both as an individual and as a community. (Teacher)
We were able to be pretty creative in a lot of different things, a lot of projects in the community and in the forest, and with drama. (Former Teacher)
Cycles and Patterns
All three initiatives recognize the importance of matching the cycles of human development and learning styles with educational experiences. All three have annual celebrations that honor the cycles of the seasons and involve the broader community.
YIHS
The curriculum is built around the developmental needs of students. One teacher described this: “Awareness of adolescent developmental issues and tailoring the curriculum to speak to those needs is a great strength . . . . Being steeped in Waldorf . . . provides an understanding of the human being and human development that informs the whole curriculum.”
CCLC
Many of the people with whom I spoke at CCLC emphasized the ways in which CCLC honors different approaches to learning and individual learning needs, as exemplified by these community member comments: “They recognize the multiple ways that kids and adults learn,” and “CCLC offers a place that is so engaging for a variety of learners.”
Headwaters
Attention to individual strengths and needs is a core value of Headwaters, as one former teacher expressed: “We have a philosophy that all kids learn at different rates and at different levels.”
Diversity
YIHS
Interviewees at YIHS clearly expressed a widespread value of diversity within the YIHS community. These comments are representative of this value: “A culture has been created in which differences are valued and seen as strengths, and everyone feels at home” (Board Member). “You want an organization to be as complex as possible. Look at natural systems, the ones that are sustainable are rich in diversity and complexity” (Former parent).
CCLC
CCLC has a commitment to diverse community representation on the staff, among volunteers, and on the board. The director described it this way: “It’s critical to have a quota system at the staff level, board level, and volunteer level. We have to be circles upon circles and continually ask: Who reflects the Passamaquoddy, the fishing industry, different generations, poor community, geographic differences, the schooling community?”
People consistently talked about CCLC as a place that brings diverse groups of people together and creates understanding among them. The following quotes are representative of this commitment and experience at CCLC:
People have said that when we hold a concert, this place has the greatest diversity they have seen anywhere. (Staff)
What I like about CCLC is that you can have somebody that’s 60-years-old and somebody that’s 8-years-old working side-by-side. That’s really valuable. That’s something that coincides really nicely with Passamaquoddy values. (Passamaquoddy Board Member)
I love the feeling that you’re welcome, no matter what preference you have or what nationality or all that. It’s not just a tolerance, it’s a love. You can meet all these people, it gives you that opportunity. I wouldn’t know any Passamaquoddy or young people that have had problems or others that are different from me. (Board Member)
Whoever walks through the door knows they’re welcome here, and I think that’s one of the main things people are attracted to about this place. You can have ten kids, be any race, any religion, orientation, everybody is welcome. People are more open when they’re here. (Community Member)
Headwaters
Diversity is valued in the emphasis on multi-age and multi-generational learning and the opportunities created throughout the year for people of diverse backgrounds and lifestyles to come together for a variety of events. A former teacher described the experience of teaching at Headwaters:
What I liked about teaching at Headwaters was the fact that there was all kinds of different ages in one room.
A Headwaters member spoke about the importance of Headwaters to the broader community: “We have activities that anyone in the broader community can come to, music is the biggest. Local people who wouldn’t necessarily participate in the school, come. There’s no bars (three dry counties in a row), no restaurants, no social gathering places, this is it. This place brings people together.”
Dynamic Balance and Renewal
YIHS
One teacher described the school as a living entity and reflected that, “It’s always breathing in and out, moving, and being flexible, adjusting.” A board member said, “We’re constantly looking back at our identity.”
CCLC
Director, Alan Furth, believed that seeing the organization as dynamic, responsive, and evolving is critical for its health and ability to serve. He said, “We have to re-form every day what we are doing, who we are here with, who is the CCLC, and how we are accountable.” A board member expressed a similar sentiment: “There’s an openness to whatever direction things need to go.”
Headwaters
A board member reflected on the history of Headwaters: “We’ve changed and responded differently over the years.” An example of this is that the school started out as a parent-led learning cooperative. As the needs changed over 34 years, they have been a private school, a homeschooling cooperative, and most recently, they describe themselves as a learning center.
Self-Organizing
As discussed in chapter 2, living systems are self-organizing. They have the ability to create new structures and processes in response to context and circumstances. The existence of these schools, in and of themselves, is representative of the concept of the self-organizing nature of living systems. As Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) pointed out in chapter 2, “The complex structures of life emerge from many local, self-organizing efforts, not from a master plan or blueprint” (p. 11). The people in the initiatives in this study have created new educational structures and processes in response to the local context and circumstances, and have done so outside of the existing educational framework of public schools. They are saying “No” to the notion of one best system and are creating local, self-organizing projects that are reflective of and responsive to local needs and culture while incorporating the larger context. This can be seen at each of the sites in their mission or core values and in their daily practices. The following quotes express this commitment to a unique, locally responsive educational experience.
YIHS
The curriculum is not so set in lines. Students find more ability to be individuals here, to be who they want to be. (Teacher)
The curriculum is so different, and it’s always changing. (Board Member)
CCLC
There’s understanding of the differences in individuals, the different individual needs. More human. They relate on the basis of human beings, rather than institutional thinking. (Passamaquoddy Tribal Member)
Headwaters
Kids learn at their own rate. We shouldn’t force them into things. (Former Teacher)
The willingness to let the kids be who they want to be really makes a magical place.
(Teacher)
Relationship
All three sites have a strong emphasis on relationship and community building, and this is clearly lived out in the daily life at each site.
YIHS
YIHS members strongly expressed this value in the document of core values (Appendix C): “YIHS values . . . community connectedness.” Jacob Hundt reflected on the values of the founding students: “They shared a desire for a school that would be . . . rooted in a sense of community and shared responsibility.”
CCLC
During the 19 interviews I had at CCLC, I heard repeatedly how relationships and community building are central to the work of CCLC, as exemplified by these comments:
CCLC is based on working with trust and relationship and building community. (Community Member)
The biggest thing that we want to do is the image of family. We want people to feel at home here. (Board Member)
Headwaters
Parents’ relationships with their children was a central motivating factor in the decision to homeschool and in the creation of this type of school. Parents wanted to be intimately involved with their children and their educational experiences. This is clearly expressed in the mission statement which says, “We strive to support and enhance parent/child relationships via multi-generational involvement in both education and community activities.” This core value was reiterated in nearly every interview in comments such as:
Building relationships is central for all involved. (Teacher)
We have made sure that everything we do is community-oriented, serves not only an educational need, but a familial need. (Board Member)
The school has brought a community focus to a rural, spread-out area. (Teacher)
The kids are really involved with each other. They’re inclusive, and they take care of each other. (Teacher)
The school has been our main social contact. (Parent)
Wholeness and Complexity
YIHS
Education is approached in a holistic way, consciously addressing physical, mental, and spiritual aspects in education. This is articulated in the Core Values (Appendix C): “YIHS aims to educate the whole human being, as defined by the Waldorf concept of head, heart, and hands or thinking, feeling, and willing.” This value was expressed in many interviews in various ways and is demonstrated by the following quotes:
The vision of the whole human being brings a reaching for excellence, dignity, and respect. Students and faculty can feel met in the deepest part of themselves. (Parent)
What we really want is to have each child leave as a whole person, not fragmented, someone who can go out and get what they need in the world and contribute to the world. (Board Member)
When you have an education that’s alive, you don’t break it down into its parts; it’s not the sum of its parts, it’s alive and growing. (Teacher)
CCLC
A commitment to a holistic approach to learning is represented by these comments:
The philosophy of CCLC embraces taking care of the spirits and hearts of the individuals in society as part of attending to learning. (Staff Member)
This ongoing educational, spiritual, health, mind and body experience is now part of my window to the world. (Community Member)
Headwaters
No one at Headwaters used the word holistic or talked about educating the whole child. As they described the experiences provided to the children, however, a holistic variety is provided that includes artistic, academic, physical, and social. People emphasized the importance of experiences in the natural world and the spirit element in the fabric of the children’s experiences and in the community.
It is also interesting to note that many of the quintessential human qualities summarized in Figure 1 in chapter 2 are also valued and nurtured in all three organizations, especially the qualities of: relationship; self awareness; courage, hope, generosity, and patience; laughter and humor; story; quest for meaning; seeking freedom and truth; and appreciation of beauty.
Common Elements in All Three Organizations
The overall focus of the organization, how the members define success, is similar in all three organizations. Each site articulates this somewhat differently, but ultimately, they are all striving to support the development of healthy individuals (in a holistic sense) who can find a passion or a sense of calling in life and can contribute to their community and to the world. The work at each site is inspired or enlivened by a core motivating piece—children and/or community health.
Figure 5 includes a summary of themes that are common to all three organizations. These commonalities are grouped in the four organizational domains of Identity; Infrastructure and Organization; Spirit; and Earth, Community, and Global Connections. The qualities listed in the figure are shared by all three organizations unless indicated otherwise. Some qualities are shared by only two of the three initiatives. Where this is the case I have indicated this in parentheses.
Infrastructure
|Small in size |Make use of non-certified teachers |Governance is nonhierarchical. |
|Open, flexible tuition structure |Commitment to accessibility for all who are |All stakeholders have a genuine voice. Some aspects of |
|Initiated and designed by |interested |decision-making are by consensus. |
|local people |No use of grades or traditional measures of |A core committed group has stayed with the project for |
|Operate on a tight budget |evaluation |the duration. |
|Low salaries | |Concerts, theater productions, and seasonal celebrations|
Identity
|Holistic |Strong, central role for the arts |Curricular flexibility and creativity |
|Experiential |Personal or community empowerment is stated |Based on an understanding of human development or human |
|Place-based |as a goal. |nature |
|Focus on relationship building |Collaborative rather than competitive spirit|Multi-age and multi-generational (CCLC and Headwaters) |
|See learning as life-long |Grounded in long-lived traditions (YIHS, |Intersection of innovation with a well-developed model or|
|Honor multiple ways that people |CCLC) |set of educational thought (YIHS, CCLC) |
|learn |On-going discussion about identity (YIHS, |A culture has been created in which differences are |
| |CCLC) |valued and seen as strengths. |
Spirit
|Depth of passion and commitment |The inherent potential of each individual is|Honesty, courage, strength, and perseverance to move |
|Comfortable with innovation |honored. |through challenges |
|Emphasize the love and joy of |Intrinsic dignity and importance of each |Based on relationship, trust, and community building |
|learning |individual |Spirit of welcome, openness, acceptance, and |
| |Nurture heart and soul, as well as skills |nondiscrimination |
Connection with Natural Environment, Community, and World
|Found a niche in the community |Responsive to interests and needs of the |See themselves in concentric rings of community—within the |
|Stewardship of the earth is valued|community |school, the local community, and the broader world |
|and practiced. |Conscious of or working with the concept of |History, local ecology, local economic activity, and local |
|Focus on strengths and local |paradigm shift |issues are part of the curriculum and programming. |
|resources |Humor and fun are viewed as organizational | |
| |strengths. | |
Figure 5. Common Themes
Summary
This chapter included a comparison and analysis of the qualitative data presented in chapter 4. The following topics were discussed: organizational differences among the sites; learning from challenges; the role of the identity of the initiators, local geography, societal trends, and paradigm shift; and the presence of the qualities of living systems. The primary conclusions related to these topics include:
• The amount of organizational planning before inception varied at each of the three sites.
• Only two of the three initiatives have drawn on educational traditions or models.
• The organizational structure varies among the three initiatives.
• All three initiatives have experienced times of challenge and crisis and have successfully moved beyond them. Interviewees suggested that what has helped those in the organization move beyond these hard times has been: the ability of community members to focus on core values and not get stuck in the details; honesty and open communication; the presence of a core group truly dedicated for the long haul; flexibility; humor; and in some cases, outside facilitation when conflict arose that could not be resolved from within the organization.
• At all three sites, interviewees made reference to the involvement of back-to-the-landers (McKibben in Ivanko & Kivirist, 2004) in the initiation and ongoing development of the organization.
• The people at these sites share some common characteristics and values. They are generally individuals who: have concerns about the mainstream approach to education; are exploring alternative paradigms for education and other aspects of their lives; are creative and flexible thinkers and innovators; and who hold a set of values that includes stewardship of the earth, an emphasis on relationships and community, a recognition of a spiritual dimension to life, an appreciation of diversity, a primary place for the arts in education and daily life, and a focus on developing individual talents and passions that can be of service to the community and larger world.
• Every quality of living systems, presented in chapter 2, was strongly present at all three sites. The living systems qualities of context, cooperation, creativity, cycles and patterns, dynamic balance and renewal, relationship, and wholeness are central in these initiatives and are articulated as strengths by those involved.
The purpose of the comparison and analysis in this chapter was to identify shared themes at all three sites. These shared themes form the basis of conclusions about success and sustainability that are presented in chapter 6. Discussion of these findings, the potential impact, and recommendations for research and practice are addressed in chapter 6.
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The results of this study are on the leading edge of a much needed effort to document grassroots education initiatives. A body of literature that describes grassroots education and the success and sustainability of such initiatives has not been available. The purpose of this research was to identify the key elements that create success in grassroots education initiatives and to examine the features that support the sustainability of that success. Schaefer and Voors (1996) observed that initiatives often start with a great deal of energy and enthusiasm, good intentions, creative and capable people, and appropriate resources. They have seen that many initiatives never really get off the ground, disappear after a short time, or become enmeshed in difficulties farther along the way. What creates the conditions for some education initiatives to thrive and grow? What are the qualities of the people, the location, the way in which the initiative is organized, the way challenges are responded to, and the values and practices that underlie the initiative? How have these created a strong organization that is serving the community well and has demonstrated the ability to sustain its efforts? These questions were central in this dissertation research.
Three broad areas are examined in this chapter. First, I examine how the common themes that emerged from the three sites compare with the body of literature related to grassroots education initiatives discussed in chapter 2. This information is then combined with the key themes discussed in chapter 5 to create a summary of the common values and strengths, organizational elements, and overall patterns that relate to success and sustainability in these grassroots education initiatives and that can inform the work of practitioners. Lastly, recommendations for further research are made.
Major Findings from the Study Related to Theory and Practice
In chapter 2, success and sustainability in organizations were examined from the perspective of researchers and practitioners involved with innovative schools, community organizing and development projects, and rural education projects. By definition, grassroots education initiatives are projects that are initiated by groups of local people who have come together around a shared educational purpose. The people come from a wide variety of backgrounds, not necessarily education, and they convene initially outside of an organizational framework. This can create a circumstance with features that are common to community organizing and development, in addition to education. Grassroots initiatives can be a hybrid of community organizing, community development, and education. Themes that are common to these diverse perspectives were listed at the end of chapter 2. This list is used again here to examine the three research sites in light of the elements cited in the literature.
Alignment with the Literature
The following 20 elements are cited by more than one author as critical to building successful and sustainable programs, organizations, or schools:
• Initiation, design, and on-going shared decision-making by local stakeholders (Hoskins, 2005; Hundt, 2004; Raywid, 1994; Schorr, 1997; Tyack, 1974).
All three organizations were initiated by a variety of local stakeholders. All three had a commitment to broad-based involvement in decision-making.
• Local strengths and resources are identified and built upon (Brown, 2006; Hoskins, 2005; Kretzman & McKnight, 1993; Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; B. Miller, 1995; Schorr, 1997).
This was central in all three organizations and was presented in chapter 4 in the section, Earth, Community, and Global Connections.
• A collective vision is developed (Brown, 2006; Hoskins, 2005; Hundt, 2004; Marshall, 1997; B. Miller, 1995; Schaefer & Voors, 1996; Schlechty, 2001; Schorr, 1997; Senge, 1990).
A vision was clearly stated in official documents and on the website at each research site. As indicated in chapter 4, the degree to which that vision was being carried out varies at the three sites.
• Long-term community health is a primary focus (Hoskins, 2005; Kretzman & McKnight, 1993).
Both interviewees and documents at CCLC expressed the goal of community health clearly. In the other two organizations, community health was not named, but the interface with the broader community was central and was seen as a mutually supportive relationship. In the case of Headwaters where the school is in a remote rural location, the focus of community health is on the widespread group of people that are connected to the Headwaters School. They have become the “Headwaters community.”
• Choice about participation (Miller, 2000; Raywid, 1994).
All three initiatives were voluntary participation organizations.
• Group process and team effort are emphasized (Biddle & Biddle, 1964; Brown, 2006; Marshall, 1997; B. Miller, 1995).
All three organizations had a strong emphasis on relationship building, collaboration, and shared decision-making. Brown (2006) emphasized the importance of understanding group dynamics in the success of an organization. At all three sites, people brought consciousness and care to the relationships within the organization, although the academic language of group dynamics was not mentioned.
• The project is small (Meier, 2000; Raywid, 1994).
Meier defined small as small enough for faculty to sit around a table together, for the school and the families to easily collaborate in person, and for everyone in the school to be known. All three initiatives were small in some respects. I was present for meetings and sat around a table or in a circle with members at each site. The issue of size became less clear in several ways at the three sites. YIHS had an unusual faculty situation with 55 students and 35 faculty, as most of the faculty were part-time. The faculty may not have even all been together during the year. It was the core faculty of two or three, the board, and the students who carried the school on a day-to-day basis. The school was certainly small enough for everyone to be known—students, families, and faculty—and for people to easily collaborate in person. Both CCLC and Headwaters were non-traditional learning communities that served a much broader community than a specific set of students. In both cases, because the area was rural and people were fairly stable for the long-term, a community familiarity was established. The key piece was that all three organizations were small enough for people to have a voice and be known in personal ways, and for people to have easy access to collaboration and participation.
• Sense of collective ownership (Brown, 2006; Hundt, 2004).
All three sites built this into their core values and organizational framework. Interviewees at each site spoke about a sense of ownership, co-responsibility, and co-creation.
• Competent, committed, and consistent leadership with clearly identifiable skills inspires others with the vision (Brown, 2006; Raywid, 1994).
Nearly everyone with whom I spoke at YIHS identified the administrator as central in the success of the school. The director at CCLC was also mentioned frequently by interviewees as central to the success of the organization. At both CCLC and YIHS, the director appeared to be an inspiring figure whose passion and commitment to the vision were contagious. Headwaters created an organizational framework that did not have a central leadership figure, nor do they talk about building leadership skills in the children or the Headwaters community. At times in the school’s history, certain teachers were named as having energy, enthusiasm, or a certain charisma that people rallied around, but this has not been a consistent part of the school’s history.
• Local leadership is developed (Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002;
B. Miller, 1995; Sen, 2003).
Both YIHS and CCLC consciously developed broad-based leadership. At Headwaters, qualities such as individual empowerment and autonomy that lead to following a passion and serving the community were discussed, but the development of leaders was not mentioned by anyone, nor was it stated in their mission or core values.
• Community alliances are established (Hoskins, 2005; Kretzman & Mc Knight, 1993; Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; B. Miller, 1995).
Developing community alliances and collaborations was central in the work of CCLC. They had alliances or collaborations with local schools, with the Quoddy Tribes Regional Land Trust, with homeschooling families, and with Mercy College. YIHS built alliances to form a sports cooperative, and they also collaborated with numerous organizations in community service projects. Headwaters is located in a sparsely populated area, and the school was not involved in or with a particular town. Consequently, the availability of other organizations with whom to collaborate or build alliances was limited.
• Relationships and a sense of community are developed within the organization (Hundt, 2004; Marshall, 1997; B. Miller, 1995; Raywid, 1994; Schaefer & Voors, 1996).
This was a central feature in each organization. It is discussed fully in chapter 4 in the spirit section and in chapter 5 in the discussion of living systems.
• Education, service, community building, and economic activity are combined (Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; Schorr, 1997).
All three organizations integrated education, service, and community building. CCLC was exploring the incorporation of economic activity through the development of a small local business. YIHS students were involved in numerous economic activities such as operating a screen-printing shop at the school, seasonal agriculture projects, and various fund-raising activities.
• One or more theories of change inform the work of the organization (Brown, 2006; Schorr, 1998).
These initiatives, by their grassroots nature, were not academic-based, nor were they created by an already existing academic or professional organization. They were created by local people focused on local issues and resources. Academic concepts such as change theory were not referred to by any of the interviewees, nor were they found in any of the organizational documents. However, people at the sites did articulate an understanding of change moving through stages and the need to adapt the organization to the stage of its development. They clearly were able to plan for desired changes. This was approached from their experiences and intuition rather than from academic knowledge.
• Systems thinking and the application of systems concepts are used in the development of the organization (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Marshall, 1997; Senge & Scharmer, 2001).
Systems theory is also an academic term and was not used by members of any of the organizations or found in documents produced by the organizations; however, as I proposed in chapter 5, all three of these initiatives were organized in ways that are in alignment with the qualities of living systems. Systems concepts were being practiced without the academic framework and language of systems theory.
• Harmony with human nature and the natural world (Marshall, 1997; Senge & Scharmer, 2001).
Both YIHS and Headwaters state in their core values the importance of education in alignment with human development. Interviewees at CCLC stressed that education at CCLC was reflective of students’ learning styles and human nature. Members of all three organizations articulated a desire to be in harmony with the natural world in their values, in the educational experiences, and in facility decisions.
• Commitment to social justice (Lewis in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002; Tyack, 1974).
The CCLC staff and some board members and participants clearly articulated a commitment to social justice. At YIHS and Headwaters, people did not talk about social justice, but instead talked about social change, social renewal, or ecological justice. Though these terms are different than social justice, they carry some similar themes and commitments in the life of these organizations.
• Importance of a core organizational group that is consistent for several years (Biddle & Biddle, 1964; Hundt, 2004).
All three initiatives had a core group, rather than a charismatic individual, that initiated, formed, and carried the project in the early years. The size of this core group varied from four families to 20 individuals. At each site, members of this core group were still involved in some way. At CCLC and YIHS, this has been about 10 years. At Headwaters, some members were involved for over 30 years. Interviewees at each site emphasized the importance of this continuity to the strength and longevity of the organization.
• Emphasis on making learning engaging (Hundt, 2004; Raywid, 1994).
Creating learning experiences that are engaging was a central motivating piece in the initiation of all three organizations.
• Responsiveness, flexibility, and designed to grow and change (Marshall, 1997; Senge, 1990).
Interviewees at each of the sites mentioned these qualities as strengths of the organization. Headwaters was not designed initially with the intention to grow and change, but during the 1990s when the school re-evaluated their mission, a focus on sustainability and the ability to grow and change in response to circumstances emerged.
This list of 20 elements related to organizational success and sustainability is derived from literature in the areas of community organizing and community development, from alternative schools, and from rural education. This list of 20 elements was identified after the sites had been selected and did not influence the selection of the sites. This dissertation research now extends most of this list to a new area, grassroots education initiatives. Of the 20 elements cited by researchers and practitioners as critical in organizational success and sustainability, 16 of the elements were clearly present at all three sites. Of the remaining four, two were present at CCLC and YIHS. The two elements not found at any of the sites are related to the use of academic concepts of change theory and systems theory in the development of the organization. The two qualities not demonstrated at Headwaters relate to leadership and developing community alliances.
Several researchers and practitioners have mentioned elements that they considered essential to success and sustainability that were not mentioned by anyone else and therefore were not included in the preceding list. Three of these are applicable in this discussion: Lewis (in de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2002), Hundt (2004), and Schaefer and Voors (1996). Educator and researcher at Highlander Folk School, Lewis outlined 12 steps for developing learning communities, listed in chapter 2. Of the three initiatives, CCLC was the one that diverged most from a traditional educational framework and clearly stated both community development and education as part of their mission. They were influenced and mentored by people in the folk school movement. CCLC incorporated all 12 steps to some degree.
Hundt (2004), whose research was discussed in chapter 2, did a thesis on success and failure in rural education initiatives and identified the following features that are common to schools that have endured: meaningful ties among the families involved, provision of flexible funding, family involvement in the life of the school, a strong sense of collective ownership, choice of a familiar organizational model that allows for easier acceptance and recognition within the broader community, and limited reliance on or connection with outside organizations. All three initiatives in this research share all of these elements except one, the choice of a familiar organizational model. YIHS did have a familiar organizational model as a high school. Both CCLC and Headwaters were educational forms that are unique to each organization, and that required a certain amount of explanation to people who were unfamiliar with them. This feature did not appear to have hindered the success or sustainability of Headwaters. For CCLC, this was a factor that interviewees acknowledged affected people’s willingness to participate. This was discussed briefly in the challenges section of chapter 4. People at CCLC consciously and intentionally created a unique educational form and recognized that bringing this to a traditional, rural community required additional efforts in outreach.
Schaefer and Voors (1996), whose work was presented in chapter 2, addressed the question of how to create healthy, small organizations. They identified seven basic aspects. One of these in particular was not identified by other researcher/practitioners: responding to a genuine community need. Each of the initiatives in this study responded to a community need or needs that were not being addressed by another organization. They found a unique niche and developed it. Schaefer and Voors also stressed the importance of qualities of spirit, such as enough courage, patience, endurance, and ambition to succeed. Headwaters members, with the perspective of over 30 years of involvement, articulated the importance of qualities of patience, endurance, and a strong shared desire for an alternative as critical in their longevity.
Key Elements in Success and Sustainability in Three
Visionary Grassroots Education Initiatives
Large differences characterize these three initiatives: they are located in different parts of the country—the Midwest, the Northeast, and the South; they emerged from different philosophical backgrounds (Waldorf education, folk education, and the alternative schools movement of the 1970s); they defined themselves differently (high school, community learning center, and school for homeschooling families); and the needs and desires that inspired each initiative were different. Two of the initiatives were relatively young, 9-11 years old, and one was over 30 years old. Yet, in spite of these differences, the large number of similarities among the three initiatives was striking. The overall focus of each organization and how the members defined success was very similar in all three organizations. Members at each site articulated this somewhat differently, but ultimately, they were all striving to support the development of healthy individuals in a holistic sense who can find a passion or sense of call in life and can contribute to their community and to the world.
Of the 20 qualities cited by researchers and practitioners as being important to organizational success and sustainability, all three initiatives demonstrated 16 of those qualities. In addition to the key elements that are in alignment with those outlined by researchers and practicing professionals, a number of other elements emerged from these sites as being important to success and sustainability. These unique elements add to the body of scholarly research on success and sustainability in educational innovation. These elements are also of importance to practitioners in schools, grassroots initiatives, and other organizations. All of these three initiatives: were responding to genuine needs in the community; were in alignment with broad cultural trends; had congruency among values, relationships, programming, vision, and in the case of CCLC and Headwaters, also congruency between values and the facility; and energy, time, and resources were equitably distributed in the areas of infrastructure, spirit, identity, and earth and community.
Hoskins (2005) said that when key elements are present in educational projects, what results is “fertile learning environments that simultaneously enrich the surrounding area” (p. 41). At each of the three sites, people expressed a similar sentiment; rich and varied learning experiences provided great benefits to individuals and the community. The following figure, Figure 6, illustrates four dimensions of an organization: Identity; Infrastructure and Organization; Spirit; and Earth, Community, and Global Connections. In the three sites in this study, these four areas were fully developed and were interconnected to create a dynamic, healthy organization. This was key to the success and sustainability of these organizations.
[pic]
Figure 6. Domains of the successful and sustainable visionary grassroots education
initiative.
Success and sustainability overlap and support each other. These concluding lists indicate elements common to all three sites that are particularly important to success and particularly important to sustainability, as indicated by interviewees or observed by me. These elements are unique to this research and are not described by other scholars and researchers in relation to success and sustainability. This is not to say that an initiative must have these elements to be successful, but existing and developing initiatives could benefit from giving these elements serious consideration. The initiatives in this study shared these elements related to success:
• Relationship and community building were central. The arts had a central role in community building.
• Clarity about identity was critical. At all three sites, that identity included an emphasis on holistic, experiential, place-based, and artistic approaches to learning.
• A strong spirit element was expressed that enlivens the work and the place. The spirit element included qualities of generosity, respect, love, trust, acceptance, joy, and genuine caring,
• A wide variety of perennial qualities of being human, presented in Figure 1 in chapter 2, were honored in the identity and programming at each site, such as: personal story; a quest for meaning; courage, hope, and patience; seeking freedom and truth; appreciation of beauty; and ceremony.
• Each site was deeply connected to its local place through its programming, the people who are involved, and the values the organization holds.
It was difficult to distinctly separate success and sustainability. Qualities that made the initiatives successful were often the same qualities cited by interviewees as necessary to build sustainability. An initiative that is not first of all, successful, will most likely not be sustainable. Several qualities did emerge as being more connected to sustainability. In the descriptions of sustainability in chapters 1 and 2, two aspects were identified. First, an organization is designed to be flexible and dynamic in changing community conditions so that it allows the organization to continue to serve community needs for the long-term. Second, Smith and Williams (1999) and Tickell (1996) added that interconnectedness in relationships and between people and the world are also central to a definition of sustainability. The following list includes qualities shared by all three sites that are more clearly linked to sustainability—the longevity of the initiatives and interconnections within each of the organizations in this study. Again, many of these qualities are unique to this research and not articulated by other researchers.
• Each initiative responded to a genuine need in the community and found a niche in which to be of service, not duplicating other services and resources in the community.
• Sustainability was related to the aliveness—the amount of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment in the initiative, whether it is monetary, relational, or programmatic.
• A core, committed group stayed with each initiative for many years.
• The initiatives made use of a variety of creative approaches to financing, or in the case of Headwaters, the needs were kept small. None relied on a single source of income.
• The design created a broad sense of ownership among members and encouraged stake-holder and community participation. A sense of co-creation, shared responsibility, and stewardship was created.
• The organizational structure was “bottom-up” and non-hierarchical.
• The ability to be flexible, responsive, and to change and evolve was clearly demonstrated.
• A sense of family or home was created so that the organization and the place become part of the fabric of local life.
• The broader community perceived the initiative as successful.
Recommendations for Further Research
Research is needed that explores the community impact of grassroots education initiatives. For example, CCLC director, Alan Furth, believed that the potential impact of organizations like CCLC on a wide variety of social, economic, and educational issues in rural communities would be great, and he wanted to see a longitudinal study that documents this. Such research would be beneficial in securing funding for learning centers like CCLC, and it would be useful in educational advocacy work at the political level.
In Viroqua, Wisconsin, site of YIHS, a number of community people articulated that the diversity of educational forms and the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit associated with some of these forms led to a cultural and economic revival in the area. Research that substantiates this premise could be beneficial, particularly for rural areas where people are working on community development and renewal.
Private school numbers are frequently documented through state accreditation agencies or through membership organizations such as the National Organization of Alternative Schools. Grassroots education initiatives that are not private schools are harder to document because they do not as readily fit into categories and may not be part of a national organization. A question that warrants exploration is: What is the variety and occurrence of grassroots education initiatives across the U.S.?
In southwest Wisconsin, a small public school that is struggling to avoid consolidation because of declining enrollment has teamed up with a homeschool cooperative in a mutually beneficial relationship. This question also warrants study: How can and are grassroots organizations interfacing with existing educational structures such as public schools?
In some countries, the government provides financial support for a variety of educational forms (Spicer, personal communication, October 19, 2007). For example, in Denmark, folk schools receive a percentage of their funding from the government with no strings attached. How well has this worked in Denmark, and how might this information inform the discussion in the United States about funding a variety of educational options in the United States such as folk schools and community learning centers?
Summary
This research brings new information to the existing body of literature on success and sustainability of educational innovation. A number of elements found in this research were not identified by other researchers. In addition, this research initiates a body of literature on grassroots education initiatives such as learning centers and learning cooperatives where research has not been available. Three large themes in this research span both success and sustainability. First, the old saying, “In the right place at the right time” comes into play. All of these initiatives emerged at a time when a genuine need existed that the initiative addressed. Each site offered educational options that were reflective of cultural trends and community needs. In addition, each of the grassroots education sites in this research were responding, consciously or unconsciously, to a broader cultural desire for institutions created around deeper values that are more representative of a broad range of human qualities. Second, I propose that being in alignment with the qualities of living systems created strengths that supported success and sustainability in these three initiatives. A strong spirit element at each of the three sites particularly contributed to an organizational aliveness. These three initiatives provided different examples of how education can be organized in alignment with the principles of living systems. Third, the success and sustainability of these three initiatives was also attributed to the balanced attention given to the four areas of Infrastructure, Identity, Spirit, and Earth, Community, and Global Connections, as well as the interrelationships among the areas that together developed the organization as a healthy, living organism.
Numerous authors presented in this dissertation have described a changing worldview occurring around the world. Orr summarized this in the Forward to The Sustainability Revolution (Edwards, 2005). He said that,
Below the radar screen and outside the cultural buzz, a revolution is beginning to gather steam at the grassroots and in out-of-the-way places around the world . . . . People and small organizations . . . are beginning to construct a different world . . . . happening first at the periphery of power and wealth where revolutions often start. (p. xiv)
As described in chapter 2, this revolution is evident in new attitudes about the value of biological diversity and species protection, in the development of alternative energy technologies, in the growing interest in everything “green” from green architecture to green communities, in faith traditions that articulate the necessity of earth stewardship, and it is evident in education. Ray and Anderson (2000), whose research was presented in chapter 2, proposed that millions of creative thinkers, whom they called the Cultural Creatives (p. xi), can pave the way to a variety of cultural solutions. They predicted the emergence of cultural hybrids, which are organizations that are neither public nor private. It may be that grassroots education initiatives inspire the creation of these new hybrid educational forms. In some places, this is already happening. For example, in some school districts, homeschoolers or private schools are working collaboratively to offer services that they could not offer alone. Interviewees at all three sites in this research indicated that changing cultural conditions and values necessitate a different approach to education. The three sites in this research offer examples of how education can be shaped in response to a different worldview.
The unique lessons of success and sustainability in this research are instructive not only for existing or forming grassroots education initiatives, but for anyone involved with educational innovation. B. Tye (1987) documented extensive research on educational reform and innovation, discussed in chapter 2, and concluded that most changes have a very short life. The deep structure of the educational system exerts a force that returns changes to the status quo. These sites offer examples of educational innovation outside of the pressures of the system and the deep structure, and in this way, they provide a unique perspective on the success and sustainability of educational innovation.
These small initiatives in out-of-the-way places in rural America are on the leading edge of a larger cultural shift identified by many writers (Ackoff, 1984; Ardaugh, 2005; Battista, 1977; Capra, 1996; Elkind, 2001; Hock, 1999; Miller, 2000; Reason & Bradbury, 2001; Seymour, 2004). Although each site had its struggles, much can be learned from their efforts. These sites offer a fresh vision of what education is for, how it is can be successfully approached, and how educational innovation can be sustained.
References
Abrams, K. S. (1999). Summary of project outcomes from EE and SSS schools’ final
report data. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Office of Environmental Education.
Ackoff, R. (Ed.). (1984). Our changing concept of the world. In R. Ackoff (Ed.),
Creating the corporate future (pp. 3-21). Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.
Adams, F., & Horton, M. (1975 ). Unearthing seeds of fire: The idea of Highlander.
Wintson-Salem, NC: John F. Blair.
American Educational Research Association. (2007). The world of educational quality.
AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
American Institute of Research. (2005). Effects of outdoor education programs for
children in California. Sacramento, CA: American Institute of Research.
Appreciative Inquiry Website (n.d.). Appreciative inquiry and the quest: A new theory and
methodology of human development. Retrieved January 26, 2007 from
.
Ardaugh, A. (2005). The translucent revolution. Lillipoh, 41(10), 52-53.
Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory
Armstrong, J. (2005). Okanogan education for sustainable living: As natural as learning
to walk. In M. Stone & Z. Barlow (Eds.), Ecological literacy: Educating our
children for a sustainable world (pp. 80-84). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Arnold, M. (2005). Rural education: A new perspective is needed at the U.S.
Department of Education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(3). Retrieved
December 19, 2007 from
Arons, S. (1995). Goals 2000 versus the rights of conscience and the building of
community. In R. Miller (Ed.), Educational freedom for a democratic society
(pp. 123-131). Brandon, VT: Resource Center for Redesigning Education.
Arons, S. (1997). Short route to chaos: Conscience, community, and the reconstitution
of American schooling. Amherst: University of MA.
Asset-Based Community Development Institute. (n.d.). Background information on Asset-
Based Community Development Institute project. School of Education and Social
Policy, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL. Retrieved January 26, 2007 from
Athman, J., & Monroe, M. (2004). The effects of environment-based education on
students’ achievement motivation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 9(1), 9-25.
Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Bard, J., Gardener, C., & Wieland, R. (2005). Rural school consolidation report. Norman,
OK: National Rural Education Association.
Bartosh, O. (2004). Environmental education: Improving student achievement.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. Retrieved
Aug. 18, 2006 from
Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Philadelphia, PA: Open
University Press.
Battista, J. (1977). The holistic paradigm and general systems theory. General Systems,
22, 65-71.
Bauch, P. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal,
and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 204-221.
Beadie, N. (2001). The promise and perils of community-based schooling. American
Journal of Education, 109(4), 112-124.
Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2000). Why rural matters: The need for every state to take
action on rural education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(2), 63-140.
Belenky, M., Bond, L., & Winestock, J. (1997). A tradition that has no name: Nurturing
the development of people, families, and communities. New York: Basic Books.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1997). Women’s ways of
knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bell, S. (2005). Connecting youth to their rural roots: Place-based education in
southeastern Kanawha County, West Virginia. Rural Roads, 3(2), 26-30.
Benjarano, B.L.S. (2005). Who are the oppressed? In C.A. Bowers & F. Apffel-Marglin
(Eds.), Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the environmental crisis (pp. 49-68).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berlak, H. (1995). Culture, imperialism, and Goals 2000. In R. Miller (Ed.), Educational
freedom for a democratic society (pp. 132-153). Brandon, VT: Resource Center
for Redesigning Education.
Berry, T. (2001). The great community of the earth. Yes!, 16, 44-46.
Berry, W. (1990). What are people for? San Francisco: North Point Press.
Berry, W. (2004). Hannah Coulter. Washington, DC: Shoemaker & Hoard.
Biddle, W., & Biddle, L. (1965). The community development process: The rediscovery
of local initiative. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bingler, S. (2001). Less is more: Learning environments for the next century. New
Orleans, LA: Concordia.
Blumenfeld-Jones, D. (2006). The art of renewing curriculum research. In G. Ladson-
Billings, & W. Tate (Eds.), Education research in the public interest (pp.
231-246). New York: Teachers College Press.
Borda, O. F. (2001). Participatory (action) research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.),
Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 27-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Borish, S. (1991). Land of the living: Danish folk high schools and Denmark’s
nonviolent path to modernization. Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin.
Bowers, C. A. (2000). Educating for eco-justice and community. Athens: University
of Georgia Press.
Bowers, C. A., & Apffel-Marglin, F. (Eds.). (2005). Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the
environmental crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, M. J. (2006). Building powerful community organizations: A personal guide to
creating groups that can solve problems and change the world. Arlington, MA:
Long Haul Press.
Browne, W. (2002). The failure of national rural policy: Institutions and interests.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bushman, J., & Brosso, R. (2006). A critical primer on postmodernism: Lessons from
educational scholarship for librarianship. Journal of Academic Librarianship,
32(4), 408.
Caine, G., & Nummela-Caine, R. (n.d.). Understanding why education must change. New
Horizons for Learning. Retrieved July 11, 2005 from
Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education. Durango,
CO: Kivaki Press.
Cajete, G. (1999). Reclaiming biophilia: Lessons from indigenous peoples. In G. Smith
& D. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action: Culture, community, and
the environment (pp. 189-206). Albany: State University of New York.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New
York: Anchor Books.
Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and
social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability. New York: Doubleday.
Capra, F. (2005). Speaking nature’s language: Principles for sustainability. In M. Stone &
Z. Barlow (Eds.), Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable
world (pp. 18-29). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Carless, S. (2003). Global Village School: An education in peace and justice. Paths of
Learning, 15, 36-41.
Center for Rural Strategies Website. Rural Myths, Perspective 3. Retrieved February 21,
2008 from
Center for Rural Strategies Website. Rural Myths, Perspective 4. Retrieved February 21,
2008 from
Chin, J. (2001). All of a place: Connecting schools, youth, and community.
Funders’ Forum on Environment and Education. San Francisco, CA: All of a
Place Institute.
Clinchy, E.( Ed.). (2000). Creating new schools: How small schools are changing
American education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Clinchy, E. (2007). Rescuing the public schools: What it will take to leave no child
behind. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cobscook Community Learning Center Website. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2006 from
Collins, T. S., & Noblit, G. W. (1978). Stratification and resegregation: The case of
crossover high school. Memphis, TN: Memphis State University Press.
Common Ground Collective Website. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2006 from
Cotton, K. (1996). Affective and social benefits of small-scale schooling. Charleston, WV:
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED401088)
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Csanyi, V. (1989). Evolutionary systems and society: A general theory of life, mind, and
culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Csikszentmilyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium.
New York: HarperCollins.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi Delta Kappan,
74(10), 752-762.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From “separate but equal” to “No Child Left Behind”:
The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In D. Meier & G. Wood
(Eds.), Many children left behind: How the no child left behind act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 3-32). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Decker, L., & Boo, M. (1995). Creating learning communities: An introduction to
community education. Fairfax, VA: National Community Education Association.
de los Reyes, E., & Gozemba, P. (2002). Pockets of hope: How students and teachers
change the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Designer/Builder Magazine. (n.d.). Radically rethinking education: An interview with
Prakash Nair of DESIGN/SHARE, the international forum for innovative schools.
Retrieved June 23, 2005 from
Designs for Learning. CLC design principles. (n.d.). St. Paul, MN: Designs for Learning.
Retrieved March 16, 2006 from
Dewees, S. (1999). The school within a school model. Charleston, WV: Clearinghouse on
Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED438147)
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Diamond, M.C. (1967). Extensive cortical depth measurements and neuron size increases in
the cortex of environmentally enriched rats. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 131,
357-364.
Diamond, M., & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child’s
intelligence, creativity, and healthy emotions from birth through adolescence.
New York: Dutton.
Dickinson, D. (2000). Learning society of the future: Questions to consider. Seattle, WA:
New Horizons for Learning.
Dickinson, D. (2002a). Community learning centers: Keystones for building viable
educational systems. Seattle, WA: New Horizons for Learning.
Dickinson, D. (2002b). Creating the future: Perspectives on educational change. Seattle,
WA: New Horizons for Learning.
Dillon, S. (2006, March 26). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. The
New York Times, Sec. 1. Retrieved May 17, 2006 from
Doll, W. (1986). Prigogine: A new sense of order, a new curriculum. Theory into
Practice, 15(1), 10-16.
Dugan, K. (1993). To live on this earth: Holistic education from the vantage of American
Indian education. Holistic Education Review, 6(1), 10-15.
Edwards, A. (2005). The sustainability revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift. Gabriola
Island, B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers.
Eikland, O. (2001). Action research as the hidden curriculum of the Western tradition. In
P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research:
Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 145-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eirene, V.S. (April 13, 2000). From Pittsburgh to New Orleans: Common Ground
Collective. Radio interview with Malik Rahim. Pittsburgh Independent Media
Center, Blast Furnace Radio. Listened to at
Eisler, R. (2002). Tomorrow’s children: A blueprint for partnership education in the
21st century. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Elgin, D. (1993). Awakening earth: Exploring the evolution of human culture and
consciousness. New York: William Morrow.
Elkind, D. (2001). The cosmopolitan school. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 12-17.
Ellis, W. (2000). Community life-long learning centers. In R. Miller (Ed.), Creating
learning communities (pp. 14-21). Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational
Renewal.
Emekauwa, E. (2004). They remember what they touch: The impact of place-based
learning in East Felicaina Parish. Arlington, VA: Rural School and Community
Trust.
Emery, K. (2002). The business roundtable and systemic reform: How corporate
engineered high-stakes testing eliminated community participation in the
developing of educational goals and policies. Dissertation Abstracts International,
63 (09), 3143. (UMI No. 764852161)
Emery, K. (2005, January). Origins and purpose of “No Child Left Behind.” Paper
presented at San Francisco State University faculty retreat, Asilomar, CA.
Retrieved from
Emery, K., & Ohanian, S. (2004). Why is corporate America bashing our public schools?
Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Engineer, N., Percaccio, C., & Kilgard, M. (2004). Environment shapes auditory
processing. Retrieved October 21, 2005 from
Ernst, G., & Statzner, E. (1994). Alternative visions of schooling: An introduction.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25(3), 200-207.
Esteva, G., & Prakash, M. S. (1998). Grassroots postmodernism: Remaking the soil of
culture. New York: Zed Books.
Esteva, G., Stuchul, D., & Prakash, M. S. (2005). From a pedagogy for liberation to
liberation from pedagogy. In C. Bowers (Ed.), Rethinking Freire: Globalization and
the environmental crisis (pp. 13-30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fab, J., Johnson, R., & Pinchot, A. (Producers). (2004). Paper Clips. [Documentary Film].
(Available from Swank Motion Pictures, 201 South Jefferson, St. Louis, MO, 63103.)
Falco, E. (2004). Environment-based education: Improving attitudes and academics for
adolescents. Columbia, SC: Department of Education.
Feuerstein, R. (1986). Cognitive development: A way to the auto-plasticity of human
existence—going beyond the possible. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fiske, E. (1992). Smart schools for smart kids: Why do some schools work? New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Flood, R. L, (2001). The relationship of “systems thinking” to action research. In P.
Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry and practice (pp. 133-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forester, A., & Reinhard, M. (2000). The learners’ way: Brain-based learning in action.
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Portage & Main Press.
Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of hope (R. Barr, Trans.). New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach
(D. Macedo, D. Koiko, & A. Oliveire, Trans.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York:
Continuum Int’l.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi
Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-753.
Gallego, M., Rueda, S., & Moll, L. (2005). Multilevel approaches to documenting
change: Challenges in community-based educational research. Teachers College
Record, 107(10), 2299-2326.
Gandhi, M. K. (1953/1980). Towards new education. Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan
Publishing House.
Gardner, H. (1991). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, J. F. (1966). Toward a truly public education: A philosophy of independence for
schools. Proceedings of the Mirin Institute, New York (# 18).
Gatto, J.T. (1992). Dumbing us down: The hidden curriculum of compulsory schooling.
Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publisher.
Gauld, J. (1995). Character first: The Hyde way and why it works. Westminster, MD: Prima
Publishing.
Gibbs, J. (2000). Tribes: A new way of learning and being together. Sausalito, CA:
Center Source Systems.
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning
organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-156.
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. New York: Continuum.
Gladden, R. (1998). The small school movement: A review of the literature. In M. Fine &
J. Somerville (Eds.), Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban
public schools (pp. 113-133). Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban Schools.
Glassman, N., & Crowson, R. (2001). Reexamining relations and a sense of place
between schools and their constituents. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2),
1-8.
Glines, D. (2001). Reversing public school reform. Paths of Learning, 8, 59-67.
Goodlad, J. (2004). Romances with schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Green, E.J., Greenough, W.T., & Schlumpf, B.E. (1983). Effects of complex or isolated
environments on cortical dendrites of middle-aged rats. Brain Research, 26, 233-240.
Greenough, W.T., & Anderson, B.J. (1991). Cerebellar synaptic plasticity: Relation to
learning versus neural activity. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 627,
231-247.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research
for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Griffin, D. R. (1992). Introduction to SUNY series in constructivist postmodern thought.
In D. Orr (Ed.), Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern
world (pp. viii-ix). Albany: State University of New York.
Gruchow, P. (1995). Grassroots: The universe of home. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed
Press.
Gruenewald, D., & Smith, G. (2008). Place-based education in the global age. New York:
Erlbaum.
Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context and
method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, B. (2001). I wish this were a poem of practices of participatory research. In P. Reason
& H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry and practice (pp. 171-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, M.H. (2004). Understanding learner-centered instruction from the perspective of
multiple intelligences. Foreign Language Annals, 34(4), 355-367.
Hammond, S. (1998). The thin book of appreciative inquiry. Bend, OR: Thin Book.
Hanshumacher, J. (1980). The effects of arts education on intellectual and social
development: A review of selected research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education, 61(2), 10-28.
Harman, W. (1988). Global mind change: The promise of the last years of the twentieth
century. Petaluma, CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences.
Hatley, K. (1988). A neo-humanist model of education. Holistic Education Review, 1(3),
12-18.
Headwaters School Website. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from
Herzog, M. J. R., & Pittman, R. (1995). Home, family, and community: Ingredients in the
rural education equation. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 113-122.
Hinson, E. (2007, Summer). The last undeveloped coastline. Maine’s Washington County:
Just off the beaten path, 8.
Hock, D. (1999). Birth of the chaordic age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Holt, J. (1976). Instead of education: Ways to help people do things better. New York: Dutton.
hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge.
Hoskins, J. (2005). Alternative learning facilities. School Planning & Management,
44(8), 40-42.
Houston, J. (1982). The possible human. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Howard, S. (1996). Changing children’s minds: Feuerstein’s revolution in the teaching
of intelligence. London: Imaginative Minds.
Howley, C., Strange, M., & Bickel, R. (2000). Research about school size and school
performance in impoverished communities. Charleston, WV: Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED448968)
.
Hundt, J. (2004). Potluck schools: Alternative education and civil society in Viroqua,
Wisconsin. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Chicago.
Hutchinson, J. (2004). Grassroots education and the necessity of relation. Philosophical
Studies in Education, 35, 35-44.
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper & Row.
Ivanko, J., & Kivirist, L. (2004). Rural renaissance. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New
Society.
Jacobs, D. T. (1998). Primal awareness. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. Washington, DC: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jimerson, L.(2006). The hobbit effect: Why small works in public schools (Policy Brief
Series on Rural Education). Arlington, WV: Rural School and Community Trust.
John C. Campbell Folk School. (2005). John C. Campbell Folk School course catalog.
Brasstown, NC.
Johnson, J., & Strange, M. (2007). Why rural matters: A report of the rural school and
community trust policy program. Arlington, West Virginia: Rural School and
Community Trust. Retrieved December 19, 2007 from
Johnson, K. (1999). The rural rebound: Recent nonmetropolitan demographic trends in
the United States. Chicago: Loyala University.
Kempermann, G., Kuhn, H.G., & Gage, F.H. (1998). Experience-induced neurogenesis in the
senescent dentate gyrus. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 3206-3212.
Kids and Community Staff. (n.d.). Kids and Community: A program of the Common
Ground Collective. Retrieved July 26, 2006 from
Kickapoo Homeschool Cooperative Website. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from
Kozol, J. (2005). Shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America.
New York: Crown.
Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path
toward finding and mobilizing community assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban
Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Kretzmann, J., & McKinght, J. (2007). Background information on the ABCD Institute
Project. Retrieved January 26, 2007 from
Krishnamurti, J. (1953). Education and the significance of life. San Francisco:
HarperCollins.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (Eds.). (2006). Educational research in the public
interest. New York: Teachers College Press.
L’Amoreaux, C. (2000). Haven: A collaborative lifelong cyber-learning community. In
R. Miller (Ed.), Creating learning communities (pp. 161-180). Brandon, VT:
Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Lawson, M. (Ed.). (1991). Selected educational writings of N. F. S. Grundtvig. Skive,
Denmark: International People’s College and the Association of Folk High
Schools in Denmark.
Leopold, A. (1966). A Sand County almanac. New York: Ballantine Books.
Leue, M. (2000). Which way: Top down or bottom-up? In R. Miller (Ed.), Creating
learning communities (pp. 29-38). Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational
Renewal.
Levy, T. (2007). Homeschooling and racism. Journal of Black Studies, 20(10), 1-19.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.
Lieberman, G., & Hoody, L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment
as an integrating context for learning. San Diego, CA: State Environment and
Education Roundtable.
Lines, P. (2000). Homeschooling comes of age. Public Interest, 140, 74-85.
Lipman, P. (2006). This is America 2005: The political economy of educational reform
against the public interest. In G. Ladson-Billings & W. Tate (Eds.), Educational
research in the public interest (pp. 98-116). New York: Teachers College Press.
Llewellyn, G. (1998). The teenage liberation handbook: How to quit school and get a real
life and real education. Eugene, OR: Lowry House Publishers.
Ludema, J., Cooperrider, D., & Barrett, F. (2001). The power of the unconditional positive
question. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 189-199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lummis, D. (1996). Radical democracy. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lundt, J. (2004). Learning for ourselves. The Futurist, 38(6), 18-22.
Mann, J. (1999, May 26). Homeschooling’s progressive wing. The Washington Post,
p. C15.
Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. (2006). Poverty in Maine 2006. Orono:
University of Maine.
Marshall, S. P. (1997). Creating sustainable learning communities for the twenty-first
century. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The organization
of the future (pp. 177-188). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Martin, J. R. (1992). The schoolhome; Rethinking schools for changing families.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1995). A philosophy of education for the year 2000. Phi Delta Kappan,
76(5), 355-360.
Martin, R. (2000). Introduction to educational alternatives. Paths of Learning Online
Library. Retrieved May 19, 2005 from
Mc Caleb, S. P. (1994). Building communities of learners: A collaboration among
teachers, students, families, and communities. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Mc Reynolds, K. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act raises growing concerns.
Encounter, 19(2), 33-36.
Meier, D. (2000). Can the odds be changed? What it will take to make small schools
ordinary practice. In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Creating new schools: How small schools
are changing American education (pp. 183-190). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Meier, D. (2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in
Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Meier, D, & Wood, G. (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left
Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milito, R. (1995). Goals 2000: What have we done with our freedom? In R. Miller (Ed.),
Educational freedom for a democratic society (pp. 96-122). Brandon, VT:
Resource Center for Redesigning Education.
Miller, B. (1993). Rural distress and survival: The school and the importance of
community. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9(2), 84-103
Miller, B. (1995). The role of rural schools in community development: Policy issues and
implications. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 11(3), 163-172.
Miller, R. (Ed.). (1995). Educational freedom for a democratic society: A critique of
national goals, standards, and curriculum. Brandon, VT: Resource Center for
Redefining Education.
Miller, R. (1997). What are schools for: Holistic education in American culture.
Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.
Miller, R. (1999). Education and the evolution of the cosmos. Encounter, 12(2), 21-28.
Miller, R. (Ed.). (2000). Creating learning communities: Models, resources and new
ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Brandon, VT: Foundation for
Educational Renewal.
Miller, R. (2002). Free schools, free people: Education and democracy after the 1960s.
New York: State University Press.
Mintz, J. (2000). Homeschool support groups and resource centers. In R. Miller
(Ed.), Creating learning communities: Models, resources and new ways of
thinking about teaching and learning (pp. 105-110). Brandon, VT: Foundation
for Educational Renewal.
Montessori, M. (2002). The Montessori method. Mineola, NY: Dover.
Mumford, L. (1946). Values for survival. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Co.
Nachtigal, P., & Haas, T. (2000, May 5). Annenberg rural challenge: School reform from
a slightly different point of view. Keynote Address at the Int’l Conference on
Rural Communities and Identities in the Global Millennium, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada.
Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends. New York: Warner Books.
Naisbitt, J. (2006, Oct.12). A conversation with Ben Merens on At Issue. National Public
Radio.
Naisbitt, J., & Aburdene, P. (1990). Megatrends 2000. New York: William Morrow &
Co.
National Agricultural Library (2006). What is rural? Retrieved Jan. 4, 2007 from
National Environmental Education Training Foundation. (2000). Environment-based
education: Creating high performance schools and students. Washington, DC:
National Environmental Training Foundation.
Nearing, H., & Nearing, S. (1954). Living the good life. New York: Schocken Books.
Neill, A.S. (1995). Summerhill school: A new view of childhood. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Nemer, K.M. (2002). Understudied education: Toward building a homeschooling
research agenda. Occasional Paper. New York: Columbia University and The
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
Neufeld, G., & Mate, G. (2005). Hold on to your kids: Why parents need to matter more
than peers. New York: Ballantine Books.
Noddings, N. (1995). A morally defensible mission for schools in the 21st century.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76(5), 365-369.
Nummela-Caine, R., Caine, G., McClintic, L., & Klimek, K. (2004). The 12 brain-mind
learning principles in action: The fieldbook for making connections, teaching, and
the human brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Oliver, D., Canniff, J., & Korhonen, J. (2002). The primal, the modern, and the vital
center: A theory of balanced culture in a living place. Brandon, VT: Foundation
for Educational Renewal.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world.
Albany: State University of New York.
Orr, D. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Palmer, P. (1998). Leading from within. In L. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership (pp.
197-208). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Palmer, P. (1999). Evoking the spirit in public education. Educational Leadership, 56(4),
6-11.
Park, P. (2001). Knowledge and participatory research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury
(Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 81-
90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parson, S. (1999). Transforming schools into community learning centers. Larchmont,
NY: Eye on Education.
Peck, S. (1987). The different drum: Community building and peace. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Pearce, J.C. (1977). Magical child. New York: Penguin Books.
Pimpare, S. (2003). Developing learning communities: A participatory research project.
Paris: UNESCO.
Pinchot, G., & Pinchot, E. (1996). The intelligent organization: Engaging the talent and
initiative of everyone in the workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Poland, B. (2002). Transcription quality. In S. Gubrium, & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook
of action research (pp. 629-649). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Porter, G. (1995). The White man’s burden, revisited. In R. Miller (Ed.), Educational
freedom for a democratic society (pp. 169-188). Brandon, VT: Resource Center
for Redesigning Education.
Powers, T. (2002). Postmodernism and James Bank’s multiculturalism: The limits of
intellectual history. Educational Theory, 52(2), 209-221.
Prakash, M. S. (1993). Gandhi’s postmodern education: Ecology, peace, and
multiculturalism relinked. Holistic Education Review, 6(3), 8-17.
Prakash, M. S., & Esteva, G. (1998). Escaping education: Living as learning within
grassroots cultures. New York: Peter Lang.
Princiotta, D., & Bielick, S. (2006). National household education survey: Homeschooling
in the United States: 2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Purpel, D., & Shapiro, S. (1995). Liberation and excellence: Reconstructing the public
discourse on education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Rasberry, S., & Greenway, R. (1970). The rasberry exercises: How to start your own school
. . . and make a book. Sebastopol, CA: Freestone Press.
Rasmussen, D. (2005). Cease to do evil, then learn to do good: A pedagogy for the oppressor.
In C.A. Bowers & F. Apffel-Marglin (Eds.), Rethinking Freire: Globalization and
the environmental crisis (pp. 115-132). Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
Ray, P., & Anderson, S. (2000). The Cultural Creatives: How 50 million people are
changing the world. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Raywid, M. (1994). Alternative schools: The state of the art. Educational Leadership,
52(1), 26-31.
Raywid, M. (1999). Current literature on small schools. Charleston, WV: Clearinghouse on
Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document and Reproduction Service No.
ED425049)
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and
practitioner-researchers. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.
Rotherham, A. (1999, February). When it comes to school size, smaller is better.
Education Week. Retrieved June 23, 2005 from
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rudner, L.M. (1999). Scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of
homeschool students in 1998. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(8).
Retrieved Nov. 17, 2007 from
Rural School and Community Trust. (2006). Anything but research-based: State
initiatives to consolidate schools and districts. [Electronic Version]. Rural School
and Policy Matters, 8(3), pp. 1-10.
Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior: Nature-nurture interplay explained. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Said, E. (1994). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage.
Saltman, K., & Gabbard, D. (Eds.) (2003). Education as enforcement: The militarization
and corporatization of schools. New York: Routledge.
Salzman, G. (2004). Grassroots groups. Retrieved January 26, 2007 from University of
MA website
Sarason, S. (2000). Contexts of productive learning, governance, charter schools, pilot
schools, the creation of settings, and the wailing wall. In E. Clinchy (Ed.),
Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education (pp. 191-202). New York: Teachers College Press.
Save the Children. (2002). America’s forgotten children: Child poverty in rural America.
Retrieved Feb. 9, 2009 from the
Scandinavian Seminar. (2004). The history and philosophy of the Nordic folk school
movement. Retrieved from . on Oct.
19, 2005.
Schaeffer, C., & Voors, T. (1996). Vision in action: Working with soul and spirit in small
organizations. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press.
Schlechty, P. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse: How to support and sustain
educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scholz, R., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating qualitative
and quantitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schorr, L. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to
rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. New
York: Harper & Row.
Schumer, R., Gomez, B., Kielsmeier, J., & Supple, C. (1993). Schools and communities:
Creating places of learning. Washington DC: Points of Light Foundation.
Sen, R. (2003). Stir it up: Lessons in community organizing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000).
Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and
everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., & Scharmer, O. (2001). In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of
action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 81-90). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Seymour, M. (Ed.). (2004). Educating for humanity: Rethinking the purposes of
education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Sherwood, T. (2000). Where has all the “rural” gone? Rural education research and
current federal reform. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(3), 159-167.
Shiva, V. (1992). Recovering the real meaning of sustainability. In D. Cooper & J.
Palmer (Eds.), The environment question: Ethics and global issues (pp. 187-193).
London: Routledge.
Siddhartha. (2005). From conscientization to interbeing: A personal journey. In C.A.
Bowers and F. Apffel-Marglin (Eds), Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the
environmental crisis (pp. 83-100). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shore, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Sloan, D. (1983). Insight-imagination: The emancipation of thought and the modern
world. Westport, CT: Charles Kettering Foundation.
Smith, G. (1998). Rooting children in place. Encounter, 11(4), 13-24.
Smith, H. (1981). Beyond the Western mindset. Teachers College Record, 82(3), 434-453.
Smith, M. (1996). Folk high schools: A survey of their development and a listing of key
texts. Retrieved October 19, 2005 from the Informal Education Association,
Smith, G., & Williams, D. (Eds.). (1999). Re-engaging culture and ecology. In G. Smith
& D. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action: On weaving education,
culture, and the environment (pp. 1-20). New York: State University.
Spellings, M. (2006, March 30). Capital Hill hearing testimony. Retrieved May 16, 2006
from
Spicer, C. (2000). Carrying on despite the violent twentieth century: A tenacious history
of People’s Education. In R. Miller (Ed.), Creating learning communities (pp.
267-278). Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER). (1998). Reports from SEER’s
research program. Retrieved Aug. 18, 2006 from
State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER). (2000). California assessment
project: The effects of environment-based education on student achievement,
phase one. Ponway, CA: State Education and Environment Roundtable.
State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER). (2005). California student
assessment project, phase two: The effects of environment-based education on
student achievement. Ponway, CA: State Environment and Education Roundtable.
Steiner, R. (1920). The renewal of education: Lectures given in Basel, Switzerland.
(Translated, 1977). Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press.
Steiner, R. (1924). Human values in education: Ten lectures given in Arnheim, Holland.
(V. Compton-Burnett, Trans.). London: Rudolf Steiner Press.
Steiner, R. (1985). The renewal of the social organism: Twenty-four essays written
during 1919 and 1920. (E. Bowen-Wedgewood, R. Marriott, Trans.). New York:
Anthroposophic Press.
Stern, J. (Ed.). (1994). The condition of education in rural schools. Washington, DC:
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Streck, D. (2003). The world social forum and the agenda of grassroots education.
Concepts and Transformations, 8(2), 117-132.
Swimme, B., & Gordon, G. (2003). The evolutionary power of play. Earthlight 13(3),
12-18.
Taylor, A. (2000). Programming and design of public schools within the context of
community. Seattle, WA: New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved May 6, 2006
from
Teran, G. (2005). Vernacular education for cultural regeneration: An alternative to Paulo
Freire’s vision of emancipation. In C.A. Bowers & F. Apffel-Marglin (Eds.),
Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the environmental crisis (pp. 69-82). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Theobald, P. (1997). Teaching the commons: Place, pride, and the renewal of
community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Theobald, P., & Nachtigal, P. (1995). Culture, community, and the promise of rural
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(2), 132-135.
Theobald, P., & Snauwaert, D. (1993). The educational philosophy of Wendell Berry.
Holistic Education Review, 6(3), 37-43.
Tickell, C. (1996). Education for sustainability. In F. Carnie, M. Tasker, & M. Lange
(Eds.), Freeing education: Steps toward choice and diversity in school (pp. 167-171).
Gloucestershire, U.K: Hawthorn Press.
Toll, C. (2001). Critical and postmodern perspectives on school change. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 16(4), 345-367.
Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Tye, B. (1987). The deep structure of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(4), 281-284.
Tye, B. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Tye, K. (1992). Restructuring our schools: Beyond the rhetoric. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(1),
8-15.
UNESCO. (2000). The World Education Forum: The global context. Retrieved
January 26, 2007 from
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Retrieved June 26, 2007 from
U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division. (2002). Census 2000 urban and rural
classification. Retrieved Jan. 5, 2006 from
VanBibber, C. (Producer/Director). (2005). Headwaters: The school away from home.
[Documentary Film]. (Available from Arkansas Educational Television Network,
350 S. Donaghey, Conway, AR 72034.
Vanides, G. (2001). Making public schools places of meaningful learning! Paths of
Learning, 10, 40-41.
Vasquez, G. R. (2005). Nurturance in the Andes. In C.A. Bowers & F. Apffel-Marglin (Eds.),
Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the environmental crisis (pp. 31-48). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Vaughan, P. (2003). Case studies of homeschool cooperatives in southern New Jersey.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(09), 3184. (UMI No. 3102755)
Visher, M.G., Teitelbaum, P., & Emanuel, D. (1999). Key high school reform strategies: An
overview of the research findings. Vocational and Adult Education, March, 19-26.
Von Secker, C. (2004). Bay schools project: Year three summative evaluation.
Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Wabanaki Website. Retrieved May 12, 2008 from
Wahisi, T.T. (1995). Making the grade: Black families see the benefits of homeschooling.
Crisis, 102(7), 14-15.
Walsh, B. (1997). Tribe looks inward for the way out. Retrieved May 12, 2008 from
/legends_&_stories.htm
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2002). Perceptions of rural America. Retrieved Dec. 19, 2007
from pubs/FoodRur/Pub2973pdf
Warren, C. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In S. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.),
Handbook of action research (pp. 83-101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weinstein, B., & Weinstein, H. (Producers). (2004). Paper clips. [Documentary film].
(Available from Swank Motion Pictures, 201 South Jefferson, St. Louis, MO 63103)
Wheatley, M. (1998). A simpler way: Playing with life’s boundless creativity.
Momentum, 29(4), 26-28.
Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic
world revised. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Wheatley, M., & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). Breathing life into organizations. Public
Management, 78(9), 10-14.
White, C., & Merrifield, J. (1990). A foot in the door; Rural communities involved in
educational change, a report prepared for Highlander Education Center.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research, design, and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Youth Initiative High School Website. Retrieved February 27, 2008 from
Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (1994). The quantum society: Mind, physics, and a new social
vision. New York: William Morrow.
Appendix A
Interview Questions
Main Interview Questions for Administrators, Teachers, and Board Members:
Tell me about your involvement with the school/project.
Could you walk me through how this school/project began?
What was the role of the community in the formation of the school/project?
How does the community continue to be involved?
What are the mission and goals?
How were they generated?
How does the school/project define success?
How does the school/project reflect the local context?
In your experience, what would you say are educational priorities for this community?
What are the roles of vision and long-range planning?
How are decisions made effecting the school/project?
The following three questions could be used to gain greater elaboration on the previous question.
• How is the leadership structured for various aspects of the school/project?
• How has this changed as the school/project has evolved?
• In what ways have teachers, parents, board members, or community members been involved in leadership?
In a societal context of high stakes testing and a focus on accountability, how does your school/project approach the issue of accountability?
How does your school/project ensure sustainability?
How is the school/project funded?
What factors may inhibit people from applying or participating?
Reflecting on your years of experience, what do you consider the key elements in the success of this project or school?
What insights and advice do you have for an initiative just getting started?
Some questions from appreciative inquiry that could be added to interviews include (Ludema et al., 2001):
• What are your organization’s best practices?
• What are the unique aspects of your culture that most positively affect the spirit, vitality, and effectiveness of your organization and its work?
• What is the core factor that gives life to your organization?
Main Interview Questions for Adult Students, Alumni, Parents, Community Members, and Affiliated Organizations
Tell me about your involvement in the school/project.
What attracted you?
What was the role of the community in the formation of the school/project?
How does the community continue to be involved?
Why was this initiative needed?
How does the school/project reflect the local context?
From your perspective, what are educational priorities for this community?
In what ways are students, parents, and community members involved in decision-making?
How do the leaders of the organization define success?
What do you consider the key elements in the success of this project or school?
Appendix B
Informed Consent Form
Vicky Eiben, a doctoral student in the School of Educational Leadership and Change at Fielding Graduate University located in Santa Barbara, CA, is asking you to participate in a research study that she is conducting for her dissertation. The goal of this research is to determine what makes grassroots education initiatives successful in rural areas. You are being asked to participate in this study because you have been involved with the ______. Vicky requests permission to interview you for approximately 30-60 minutes at a time arranged at your convenience. Your participation would be voluntary, and with no compensation provided.
If you agree to participate, the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. All materials will be kept in a locked file cabinet in Vicky’s home, and she will be the only person who will listen to the taped interviews.
No identifying information will be used in written material, such as a person’s name or specific position. Information will be reported by interviewee group such as teachers or community members. Any quotes that might be associated with a particular person due to the small group size such as the director will be cleared with the person involved.
You may develop greater personal awareness of grassroots education initiatives in rural areas as a result of participating in this research. The risks to you are considered minimal; there is little or no likelihood that you will experience discomfort during or after your participation since the questions are not of a personal nature, but are related to the development and success of_______.
You may withdraw from this study at any time, either during or after your participation, without negative consequences. If you decide to withdraw, you can contact Vicky or the director, who will let Vicky know of your request. Vicky’s contact information is below. Should you withdraw, your data will be eliminated from the study and will be destroyed.
The results of this research will be published in my dissertation and possibly in subsequent journals, books, and other publications. You may request a copy of the summary of the final results by indicating your interest at the end of this form.
If you have any questions about any aspect of this study or your involvement, please discuss them with Vicky Eiben before signing this form. You may also contact the supervising faculty member, Dr. Sue Gordon, using the contact information below if you have questions or concerns about your participation in this study.
Two copies of this informed consent form have been provided. If you agree to participate in this research, please sign both, indicating that you have read, understood, and are willing to volunteer in this research. Return one copy to Vicky and keep the other for your files. The Institutional Review Board of Fielding Graduate University retains access to all signed informed consent forms. The Institutional Review Board may be contacted at 805-898-4033 or irb@fielding.edu. Any records that would identify you as a participant in this study, such as informed consent forms, will be destroyed by Vicky approximately five years after the study has been completed.
_____________________________________
NAME OF PARTICIPANT (please print)
_____________________________________
SIGNATURE OF PARTICIPANT
_____________________________________
DATE
FACULTY ADVISOR
RESEARCHER
Dr. Sue Gordon Vicky Eiben
Fielding Graduate University S-3007 West Salem Ridge Road
2112 Santa Barbara Street La Farge, Wisconsin 54639
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
suemgordon@ veiben@
805-687-1099 608-625-6335
Yes, please send a summary of the study results to:
_____________________________________
NAME (please print)
_____________________________________
Street Address
_____________________________________
City, State, Zip
Email_________________________________
Appendix C
YIHS Core Values Document
Core Values—Prepared by the YIHS Long Range Planning Committee, Fall 2006
1. YIHS affirms the intrinsic dignity and importance of each individual human being. Every person is entitled to respect, care, and consideration for personal needs, feelings, opinions, and interests.
2. YIHS aims to educate the whole human being, as defined by the Waldorf concept of “head, heart, and hands” or thinking, feeling, and willing.” Activities directed towards the development of each of these three parts of the human being should ideally be a part of each class session, of each main lesson block or path class, and of the curriculum as a whole. None of these three is given a higher or lower priority than the others, nor are students who exhibit notable skill in any one of these three areas praised more highly than students with skills the other areas.
3. Every human being is capable of becoming an autonomous, self-directing moral actor. The goal of education at YIHS is to foster development in this direction.
4. YIHS values hard work, responsible behavior, and community connectedness, combined with spiritual growth and personal development in an age appropriate manner. YIHS also places a high value on the qualities of initiative, critical though, self-motivation, and foresight on the part of students, teachers, and other community members.
5. Everyone with a stake in the school, including teachers, parents, and students must be given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in school governance, either directly or through formally designated representatives. This principle flows directly from the intrinsic dignity of the human being affirmed in item #1. YIHS also considers student participation in school governance to be a central part of its curriculum.
6. The successful YIHS student is one who fully and consciously commits to participation in the life of the school, including both academics and school governance. YIHS will work for as along as necessary with any student for who this commitment, as expressed in words and actions remains in effect.
7. YIHS places a high value on transparency where it is appropriate, especially in the areas of finance and policy making.
8. YIHS is part of a wider community and world. The ultimate end of education at YIHS is to improve the world by fostering the development of courageous, conscientious, and effective individuals.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- high school transcript new york
- new york high school ranking
- new york city high school transcripts
- new york state high school rankings
- new york high school directory
- curtis high school new york
- new york city high school directory
- 2017 new york city high school directory
- high school equivalency office new york state
- new haven high school indiana
- best high school in new york
- new york high school rankings